Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2016-10-19; 30 Nd 230/2016
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2016:30.ND.230.2016.1
Date: 2016-10-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82016CZ1019(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a claim of EUR 10_420.07 as payment for attendance at the fair TRAKO 2015 in Gdansk.
The plaintiff made a motion within on-going proceedings to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) to determine, which Czech court has the local jurisdiction to rule on the case as the Supreme Court is supposed to do under Article 11(3) of the OSŘ (1). According to the plaintiff, the parties contractually agreed that Czech courts shall have jurisdiction for any disputes arising from their contract. The specific local jurisdiction of a specific Czech court had not been set out in the contract, so there was no statutory criterion to determine local jurisdiction other than the one where the Supreme Court appoints local jurisdiction to a specific court.
The Supreme Court applied the Brussels I bis Regulation (2) as the motion was delivered on 21st June 2016. According to Article 25(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the courts of a Member State have jurisdiction if the parties of a contract agreed that a court, or the courts, of a Member State are to have jurisdiction to settle any disputes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship. The agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be either: (a) in writing or evidenced in writing; (b) in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or (c) in international trade or commerce, in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are or ought to have been aware and which in such trade or commerce is widely known to, and regularly observed by, parties to contracts of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce concerned.
In the copy of the contract provided to the Supreme Court by the plaintiff the court discovered that the contract between the parties did confer jurisdiction to the Czech courts, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation. As there was no exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24 of the Regulation in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the Czech courts had international jurisdiction.
The defendant was a legal person residing in Poland and does not have a branch office or assets in the Czech Republic. The Supreme Court therefore applied its role under national law and prescribed which court is supposed to decide the case if none of the criteria set out in the OSŘ are applicable to determine the local jurisdiction. The Supreme Court decided that the case should be decided by the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 4 (“District Court Prague 4”) as it is the jurisdiction where the plaintiff has its place of residence, and the defendant is not residing in the Czech Republic, therefore the jurisdiction cannot be based on the general rule of the place of residence of the defendant.
(1) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb., občanský soudní řád (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.