Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2022-06-14; 30 Nd 674/2021
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2024:30.ND.674.2021.3
Date: 2024-04-09
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82024CZ0409(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns the determination of territorial jurisdiction by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
An individual FD resident in Slovakia, as the creditor, and a company domiciled in Slovakia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), as a debtor, concluded two pecuniary loan contracts. Each of these two contracts contains an agreement conferring jurisdiction according to which the disputes ‘shall be settled by a court of the Czech Republic’. By way of an assignment agreement, FD assigned its claims under those contracts to a company domiciled in Slovakia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’).
Since the defendant had not repaid the loans, the plaintiff brought an action before the Supreme Court, seeking (a) payment of the defendant’s debts and (b) the determination of a Czech court having territorial jurisdiction to rule on the merits under Section 11(3) of the o.s.ř. (1). The plaintiff claimed that the agreement conferring jurisdiction was valid under Article 25(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2).
The defendant contested the validity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute lacked an international element since both parties were domiciled in Slovakia. According to the defendant, the agreement conferring jurisdiction is manifestly contrary to public policy since it precludes the application of the rules of the law of the State within whose jurisdiction the legal person falls. Moreover, the place of granting and repayment of the loans was also in Slovakia. Finally, the defendant argued that other proceedings were already on the same subject matter brought before the Slovak court in Bratislava.
The Supreme Court considered that the dispute raised an issue that had not yet been decided by national case law or considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), decided to stay the proceedings and to refer a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling. In Case C-566/22 (3), the CJEU ruled that ‘Article 25(1) of [the Brussels I Regulation (recast)] must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement conferring jurisdiction by which the parties to a contract who are established in the same Member State agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State to settle disputes arising out of that contract is covered under that provision, even if that contract has no other connection with that other Member State’.
In the reopened proceedings, the Supreme Court confirmed the validity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction and held that the Czech courts had international jurisdiction to hear the case. Regarding other defences raised by the defendant, the Supreme Court held that all these defences should be considered on their merits in the main proceedings and not in the current proceedings, which only aim to determine the territorial jurisdiction.
Following the rules laid down by the o.s.ř. and taking into account the principle of the economy of proceedings, the Supreme Court determined that the case would be heard and decided by the Okresní soud ve Vsetíně, in whose district the defendant’s managing director resides according to the data of the Commercial Register, and which is also not far from the seat of the plaintiff's representative.
(1) Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).
(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 (recast).
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 February 2024, Inkreal s.r.o. v Dúha reality s.r.o., C-566/22, ECLI:EU:C:2024:123.