Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2024-11-19; 23 Cdo 511/2022
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2024:23.CDO.511.2022.3
Date: 2024-11-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82024CZ1119(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerned international jurisdiction in proceedings seeking substitution of the defendant’s consent to the release of an item from court custody.
The plaintiffs (Czech nationals) brought an action against the defendants (French nationals domiciled in France) seeking a decision substituting the defendants’ expression of will so that the plaintiffs could obtain the release of a specified vehicle from the custody of the Okresní soud v Českých Budějovicích (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). The vehicle had been seized by the Czech police on suspicion that it was linked to a theft committed in France and was subsequently placed in court custody. Both sides claimed rights to the vehicle and sought its release.
The Court of First Instance declined international jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings, holding that jurisdiction could be founded only under Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), but that the defendants had not entered an appearance. On the plaintiffs’ appeal, the Krajský soud v Českých Budějovicích (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) upheld that order.
The plaintiffs lodged an appeal on a point of law before the Supreme Court, arguing in particular that the proceedings were incidental to custody proceedings arising from a seizure in criminal proceedings and therefore did not fall within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The Supreme Court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on whether such proceedings constitute ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and, if so, whether Article 8(2) was applicable.
Following the CJEU’s judgment in Case C-494/23 (2), the Supreme Court held that proceedings seeking substitution of consent for the release of an item from court custody, where that custody resulted from a seizure by criminal-law enforcement authorities, do not fall within ‘civil and commercial matters’ under Article 1(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The Supreme Court therefore found that the Court of Appeal’s application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was incomplete and incorrect.
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of both lower courts and remitted the case to the Court of First Instance, which was directed to re-examine international jurisdiction.
(1) 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).
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 October 2024, QE and IJ v DP and EB, C-494/23, ECLI:EU:C:2024:848.