Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2014-06-25; 30 Nd 25/2014
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2014:30.ND.25.2014.1
Date: 2014-06-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82014CZ0625(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a debt of CZK 83_574.68 arising from a credit agreement.
The Okresní soud Kroměříž (hereinafter "the District Court Kroměříž") declared a lack of local jurisdiction and referred the case to the Okresní soud Zlín (hereinafter "the District Court Zlín". The District Court Zlín did not agree and submitted the case to the Court of Appeal (Krajský soud Brno (Regional Court in Brno)). The Court of Appeal agreed that the disagreement was reasonable and the District Court Kroměříž, where the dispute originated, submitted the case to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter "the Supreme Court") to determine which court in the Czech Republic had the jurisdiction to rule in this case.
The defendant was a citizen of Vietnam. The Supreme Court had to deal with the question of whether the Czech courts have international jurisdiction. The Supreme Court applied Article 15(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) according to which, in matters relating to a contract concluded by a consumer, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section if (a) it is a contract for the sale of goods on instalment credit terms; or (b) it is a contract for a loan repayable in instalments, or for any other form of credit, made to finance the sale of goods.
The defendant is, according to the documents submitted by the plaintiff, a party of a credit agreement. The defendant entered into this contract as a consumer as it was not specified in the contract that the purpose of the contract is to fund professional or business activities of the defendant. The defendant had a place of residence in the Czech Republic at the time of entering into contract. The Court therefore applied Article 16(2) of the Brussels I Regulation under which proceedings may be brought against a consumer by another party to a contract only in the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled. The Supreme Court attempted to confirm if the defendant had a domicile in the Czech Republic. It could not be proven that the defendant had been domiciled in the place of residence that he had reported, as this was just a Foreign Police station, not a place where the defendant could actually have stayed and lived. The court did not find any evidence of circumstances pointing to the fact that the defendant had lived or was living in other Member States, nor that he had lived or was living somewhere outside of EU.
The Supreme Court therefore considered the purpose of the Brussels I Regulation – to eliminate possibilities of denegation iustitiae and also to strengthen the protection of people living in any Member State of the EU. If the domicile of the defendant is unknown, the need to uphold the rights of a defendant is in conflict with the rights of a plaintiff. Every court has to balance those rights. In the case that a defendant is deprived of its rights, he can use the protection provided to him from the articles of the Brussels I Regulation concerning the recognition of decisions. On the other hand, the plaintiff does not have any other method to procedurally protect his rights. This was the argument of Court of Justice of the European Union in its case C-292/10 (2).
In a case in which courts are not able to determine an actual domicile of a defendant and do not have evidence pointing towards the conclusion that a defendant is staying outside of EU, the courts should apply Article 16(2). If a defendant left its place of residence without informing its contractual partner, the courts of the Member State in which the last known place of residence of the defendant have jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court therefore concluded that Czech courts did have the international jurisdiction to rule in the case, as the last known place of residence of the defendant was in the Czech Republic. It is also the place that the defendant specified in the credit agreement and did not subsequently notify the plaintiff of any change. The Supreme Court also ruled on the local jurisdiction of the Czech courts. As it was not possible to determine a general court of the defendant based on the procedural rules of national law, the Supreme Court designated under the Article 11(3) of the OSŘ that this particular case was to be decided by the District Court Kroměříž. The reason for this was that this court is in the area of the place of residence that the defendant specified in the contract.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 March 2012, G v Cornelius de Visser, C-292/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:142.
(3) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).