Nejvyšší soud Brno; 2022-06-14; 30 Nd 674/2021
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2022:30.ND.674.2021.1
Date: 2022-06-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82022CZ0614(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, addressed to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerns the applicability of European legislation in a case involving a questionable international element.
A company domiciled in the Slovak Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied for payment based on the plaintiff’s acquisition, by means of subrogation, of two claims held previously by a natural person domiciled in the Slovak Republic (hereinafter ‘FD’), against another company domiciled in the Slovak Republic (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The contracts between FD and the defendant included an agreement conferring jurisdiction with identical wording, stipulating that, in the event of a dispute that cannot be resolved by negotiation, that dispute ‘shall be settled by a court of the Czech Republic having substantive and territorial jurisdiction’. Pursuant to Paragraph 11(3) of o.s.ř. (1) the plaintiff requested that the Supreme Court determine the court having territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Supreme Court held that there was an international element in the case, but was uncertain whether the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) was applicable to the situation at issue, given that the international element was limited to an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State other than that in which the contracting parties were established. This issue has been addressed differently in both academic legal literature and the national case law of the Member States. According to the Supreme Court, the case could be classified as purely national on the ground that the mere will of the parties cannot suffice to confer an international character on their contractual relationship.
In these circumstances, the Supreme Court decided to refer the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling:
‘From the perspective of the existence of an international element, which is required for [the Brussels I Regulation (recast)] to apply, [can] the application of [that Regulation] be based solely on the fact that two parties with their seat in the same Member State agree on the jurisdiction of courts of another European Union Member State?’ (Case C-566/22 (3)).
Subsequently, the Supreme Court decided to stay the proceedings pending the CJEU’s interpretation.
(1) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb., občanský soudní řád (Law No 99/1963 establishing the Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).
(3) Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 August 2022 — Inkreal s. r. o. v Dúha reality s. r. o.