Nejvyšší soud; 2012-03-29; LINVESTA, a. s.; 1) H. W. B. and 2) B. B.-R ; 33 Cdo 2905/2011
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2012:33.CDO.2905.2011.1
Date: 2012-03-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82012CZ0329(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case regards a cassation examined by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic concerning an additional payment of 1_082.74 EUR from a real estate purchase contract and for establishing an easement to this real estate.
Relevant law: Article 5 and Article 3(1) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ("Brussels I Regulation") and §104(1) and §103 of Czech Statute No 99/1963, the Code of civil procedure.
The defendants have their place of habitual residence, that is, domicile in common law, in another EU Member State. They were registered for a temporary stay in the Czech Republic until 5 September 2006, but the action was brought on 12 November 2010. The Court of First Instance dismissed the case on the opinion that jurisdiction based on the place of position of real estate should not apply because this case concerned the payment of a monetary amount. The Court, therefore, applied Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation. According to the Court of Second Instance, The Netherlands should be the place of performance of the obligation in question by applying Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation, as the defendants were citizens of the Kingdom of Netherlands with habitual residence in the same place and the parties have not designated another place of residence. Czech courts, therefore, do not have jurisdiction to decide this case and the Court of Second Instance dismissed the case.
The plaintiff filed an appeal to the Supreme Court arguing that the defendants have residence permits in the Czech Republic, they are members of a housing association in the Czech Republic, and they are owners of immovable property there. The Plaintiff also claimed that based on the place of location of the property, the obligation between parties (according to Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation) should have been carried out in the Czech Republic and the courts of lower instances did not take this into account.
The Supreme Court did not agree with the plaintiff’s arguments. It is not possible to apply Czech statute on conflict of laws as the Brussels I Regulation has precedence over national law. Article 5(1)(b) is not applicable, as the real estate purchase contract is neither a contract for the sale of goods nor a contract for the provisions of services (also according to Article 4(1)(a) and (c) of the Rome I Regulation). In this case, the habitual residence of the defendants and not the place of property is relevant and Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation is applicable and the courts of lower instances were right in declaring the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts.
The argument of the plaintiff that the defendants have residence permits in the Czech Republic is inadmissible, as the purpose of the proceeding before the Supreme Court is to review decisions of lower courts. Evidence and arguments that have not been previously presented to courts of lower instances are, therefore, inadmissible in general, unless there is an exception to this rule. There is no exception to this rule in this particular case.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.