Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2020-04-15; 27 Cdo 12/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2020:27.CDO.12.2019.1
Date: 2020-04-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82020CZ0415(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a payment of EUR 59,675. The plaintiff was a Czech company. The defendant was an associate and a manager of the plaintiff. She sold a car owned by the plaintiff in Germany for EUR 40_336.13. Then she transferred the amount of EUR 40.011,91 to her personal bank account. The objective market price of the car at the time of the sale was EUR 60,000.
The Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) decided that the defendant is obliged to pay EUR 19,664 to the defendant to make up the true value of the car, for the remaining EUR 40,011 it dismissed the case. As the defendant’s current whereabouts were not known, the court appointed a representative, which did not object to the jurisdiction of the Czech courts. The lack of jurisdiction was objected to later by an attorney, which the defendant chose.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the Czech courts had international jurisdiction according to Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’. The harmful event was that the assets of the plaintiff were not increased due to the sale of the car – the damage was caused in the Czech Republic. The Court of First Instance did not find the claim of EUR 40,011 lawful, as the defendant transferred this money to herself to pay back a loan given to the plaintiff by her husband. However, the Court of First Instance declared the obligation of the defendant to pay EUR 19,664.
Both the defendant and the plaintiff appealed the decision. The plaintiff, however, later took back its appeal and the case, therefore, regarded only a payment of EUR 19,664. The Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal‘) concluded that there was a lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts as the harmful event occurred in Germany, not in the Czech Republic. The car was sold in Germany and the fact that the defendant later transferred the money to her Czech bank account is not relevant for the purposes of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Jurisdiction cannot be based on Article 26 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) either, as the defendant entered an appearance only to contest the jurisdiction.
The plaintiff filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court‘). It argued that the harmful event occurred both in the Czech Republic and Germany. It also argued that the representative did not object to the courts of jurisdiction, which was objected to only later in the proceedings by the defendant’s attorney. The Supreme Court refused the argument that the damage was caused both in Germany and the Czech Republic, and stated that both claims, for EUR 40,011 and EUR 19,664, could have been decided by the German courts. As a reaction to the argument of appearance in proceedings, the Supreme Court cited Case C-112/13 (2) of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which Article 26 ‘is based on a deliberate choice made by the parties to the dispute regarding jurisdiction, which presupposes that the defendant was aware of the proceedings brought against him. On the other hand, an absent defendant upon whom the document instituting proceedings has not been served and who is unaware of the proceedings against him may not be regarded as having tacitly accepted the jurisdiction of the court seised. (…) Nor, accordingly, may an appearance entered by a court-appointed representative be regarded as tacit acceptance, by the defendant, of the jurisdiction of that court’.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case.
(1) 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.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 September 2014, A v B and Others, C-112/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2195, paragraphs 54 to 55.