Nejvyšší soud České Republiky; 2016-10-13; 20 Cdo 3795/2016
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2016:20.CDO.3795.2016.1
Date: 2016-10-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82016CZ1013(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter "the Supreme Court") in a dispute related to the enforcement of a Dutch judgment of 18 February 2015, whereby the liquidator of the Company Reggehuys Management B.V., based in the Netherlands (hereinafter "the plaintiff"), claimed to obtain a payment from Liberec Real Estate, s.r.o. (hereinafter "the defendant").
The plaintiff enclosed the Dutch judgment together with a notarised enforceable title and certificate referred to in Article 53 and Article 58 of the Brussels I Regulation (1). The Obvodní soud Praha 4 (hereinafter "the District court Praha 4") declared, by its order, the decision of the Dutch court enforceable in the Czech Republic; in its decision referred to Articles 32, 38, 39, 41, 42(1) and 43(1) of the Brussels I Regulation.
The defendant appealed this order. The Court of Appeal held that not the Brussels I Regulation, but the Brussels Ia Regulation (2) (in force since 10 January 2015) should be applied in this case. The Court of Appeal supported its decision by interpretation of Article 66(1) and (2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. According to this interpretation, the essential fact was that the Dutch judgment was adopted after this Regulation entered into force. Conversely, the date of the start of the proceedings was held as irrelevant. After this, the Court of Appeal based its decision on Article 39 of the Brussels Ia Regulation, according to which “a judgment given in a Member State which is enforceable in that Member State shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required”. Based on this Article, there is no need for an enforcement procedure in the Czech Republic, and so, the Court of Appeal annulled the order of the District court Praha 4 and stopped the proceedings.
The order of the Court of Appeal was appealed both by the plaintiff and the defendant. They both objected, among other reasons, the method of interpretation of Article 66 of the Brussels Ia Regulation made by the Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court, as the cassation court, accepted the cassation appeal to the order of the Court of Appeal, because one of the essential issues to consider is the applicability of the Brussels I Regulation vs. Brussels Ia Regulation in proceedings initiated before 10 January 2015, but with the judgment adopted only after this date. Such an issue had never been considered by the Supreme Court before, so the cassation appeal was held admissible (based on § 237 of the OSŘ (3)).
In the view of the Supreme Court, Article 66(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation is very clear and could be interpreted only in the way that it shall be applied only to proceedings instituted on or after 10 January 2015. Moreover, Article 66(2) clearly states that Brussels I Regulation “shall continue to apply to judgments given in legal proceedings instituted…. before 10 January 2015”. Therefore, the interpretation of Article 66 made by the Court of Appeal was wrong.
The Supreme Court held that the order of the Court of Appeal should be annulled and new proceedings, where the Brussels I Regulation must be applied, will be instituted.
(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) 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.
(3) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).