Nejvyšší soud Brno, usnesení ze dne 26/05/2011 33 CDO 2485/2008 D&I CONSULTING LIMITED against F.H.
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2011:33.CDO.2485.2008.1
Date: 2011-05-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82011CZ0526(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff, a British company, filed a claim with the Okresní soud of Cheb (CZ) for payment resulting from a credit agreement against a Czech natural person. The court stated that the agreement in question was a consumer contract and pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Brussels I Regulation, proceedings could be brought against a consumer only in the courts of the Member State in which the consumer was domiciled. The court concluded that Article 59 of the Brussels I Regulation does not apply to cases in which the domicile is not known, and that therefore under the Regulation, proceedings could not be brought against a person whose domicile is not known. As the plaintiff had not proved that the defendant was domiciled in the Czech Republic, the court declined jurisdiction. On appeal, the Krajský soud of Plzen (CZ) confirmed that decision.
On a further appeal, the Nejvyšší soud (CZ) reverses the decision of the lower courts, reasoning that the fact that the defendant's domicile is unknown cannot preclude the court from considering its jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation. It states that under Czech law domicile is a place where a person stays with the intention of staying there permanently. One cannot deduce that the defendant's domicile is the place where he was officially registered, and therefore decline to proceed pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the Brussels I Regulation. It does not appear from the file that the defendant is domiciled outside the EU (Article 4). The court states further that the Regulation does not harmonize national procedural law and does not prevent the application of national legal provisions which enable proceedings to be pursued against a person whose domicile is unknown. If jurisdiction cannot be determined pursuant to the above mentioned articles, it has to be determined according to the national law of the court in question. It is not permissible for a debtor to escape his creditor because no court has jurisdiction.