Nejvyšší soud; 2019-02-27; 20 Cdo 3811/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2019:20.CDO.3811.2018.1
Date: 2019-02-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82019CZ0227(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the assessment of conditions for the recognition and enforceability of a foreign decision considered by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
Two natural persons (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) applied before the Okresní soud ve Zlíně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for the recognition and enforcement of a judgment given by the Rechtbank Amsterdam (the Netherlands) against two natural persons (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’ and ‘defendant 2’). The Court of First Instance invoked the Brussels I Regulation (1) and granted the application.
Defendant 2 appealed to the Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) arguing that the Dutch judgment was issued in default of its absence. Conversely, the Court of Appeal held that all formalities required by the Brussels I Regulation were reliably completed. The Dutch judgment was accompanied by a necessary certificate confirming its enforceability in the Netherlands. The Court of Appeal further added that ‘under no circumstances may a foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance’ (Article 36 of the Brussels I Regulation), so the arguments of defendant 2 regarding the proceedings in the Netherland cannot be reviewed. The appeal was dismissed.
Defendant 2 filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court alleging an erroneous application of the Brussels I Regulation. Defendant 2 cited Article 34 of the Brussels I Regulation and alleged that the Dutch judgment was given in default of its appearance, since defendant 2 was not served with the documents which instituted the proceedings. Moreover, during the Dutch proceedings, it was represented by the lawyer of defendant 1, who lacked the entrustment to represent defendant 2, and therefore the judgment was given in default of appearance of defendant 2.
The Supreme Court cited Articles 34, 36, 41, 43, 45, 53 and 56 of the Brussels I Regulation. The Supreme Court held that the fact that the court of the Member State where the recognition and enforcement is sought cannot review the substance of the disputed judgment cannot be interpreted as meaning that Czech court shall ignore the alleged breach of service of documents pursuant to Article 34(2). The Czech court is not entitled to review the specific process of the service of documents, if they were served. However, the absence of serving or the fact that the judgment was given in default of appearance may and shall be reviewed. Not even a certificate of enforceability issued according to Article 54 of the Brussels I Regulation is sufficient to ignore the defendant’s allegations. The Court of Appeal was obliged to assess the application of Article 34(2) of the Brussels I Regulation as well as the allegations of defendant 2 referring to this Article but failed to do so.
The Supreme Court annulled the conclusions of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to this court for further consideration.
(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.