Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2015-05-19; 29 ICdo 23/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2015:29.ICDO.23.2015.1
Date: 2015-05-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82015CZ0519(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The plaintiff in this case filed a motion for the court to declare the invalidity of a sales contract for production machines, and requested the defendant to provide all of these machines as assets towards ongoing insolvency proceedings. The defendant objected, citing a lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts (without any additional argumentation).  The plaintiff objected and cited case C-339/07 (1) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and also Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (2). Only after this argument of the plaintiff, the defendant amended its argument and stated that the Brussels I Regulation (3) should apply. The last motion was made by the plaintiff, who argued that the Brussels I Regulation serves as the lex specialis to the Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 and therefore the latter of these regulations should apply. The Court of First Instance assessed the arguments and rejected the objection concerning the supposed lack of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts. The appellate court confirmed the decision of Court of First Instance. It argued that the principles for using the ZMPS as a source of national law shall apply only if the law of the EU does not apply. It also cited Article 4(2)(m) and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 and concluded that save as otherwise provided in the Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened. Parties also agreed in the contract that all disputes arising from the contract should be decided based on Czech law. According to Article 3(1) of Rome I Regulation (4), a contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. Therefore, the exemption from Article 4(2)(m) contained in Article 13 of the Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 should not apply, because the contract is governed by Czech law.
The defendant filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) arguing that that lower courts should have applied Article 2(1) of the Brussels I Regulation defining jurisdiction based on the place of residence. The supreme Court concluded that Articles 4(2)(m) and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 define applicable law. By contrast, Article 3 defines international jurisdiction. The Supreme Court therefore applied the argumentation of the CJEU in the aforementioned case C-339/07. The Czech court that opened the insolvency proceedings therefore has the jurisdiction to decide successive disputes in this proceeding. Even though the appellate court failed to use this reasoning, its decision would have been the same if applying the arguments in case C-339/07. Its decision was therefore correct and the Czech courts held the international jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the case.
(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 February 2009, Christopher Seagon v Deko Marty Belgium NV., C-339/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:83.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(4) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations.