Nejvyšší soud; 2017-06-01; 20 Cdo 776/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2017:20.CDO.776.2017.1
Date: 2017-06-01
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82017CZ0601(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A Czech company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) sought a declaration of enforceability of a judgment of the Bezirksgericht Floridsdorf, Austria (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Floridsdorf’) against another Czech company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The Obvodní soud pro Prahu 4 (the Court of First Instance in Prague) concluded that all conditions laid down by the Brussels I Regulation (1) were fulfilled and declared the judgment enforceable in the Czech Republic. In its appeal, filed before the Městský soud v Praze, (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) the defendant objected, citing the fact that the Austrian judgment was itself just a declaration of enforceability of a judgment issued by the Fürstliches Landgericht Vaduz, Liechtenstein (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Vaduz). The Court of Appeal cited Article 32 of the Brussels I Regulation, according to which ‘for the purposes of this Regulation, "judgment" means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called’. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Floridsdorf might be declared enforceable, even if that judgment only declares another judgment enforceable. The first instance decision was upheld.
The defendant appealed to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) alleging that the legal opinion of both lower courts was incorrect.
The Supreme Court considered that judgments enforcing other judgments could not be subsumed under Article 32 of the Brussels I Regulation. If the plaintiff seeks the enforceability of a foreign judgment in more than one state, it must file a separate request for the enforcement of the original judgment in each of these states. Therefore, the plaintiff must request the enforceability of the original Liechtenstein judgment in the Czech Republic, not the enforceability of an Austrian judgment, which is in itself just a declaration of enforceability and therefore is binding only in Austria.
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Czech lower courts and dismissed the action seeking a declaration of the Austrian judgment itself.
(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.