Nejvyšší soud; 2013-03-13; město Břeclav; V. H.; 28 Nd 276/2012
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2013:28.ND.276.2012.1
Date: 2013-03-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82013CZ0313(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case regards a determination of domestic and international jurisdiction by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic the need of which arose in the case of a judgment enforcement by a bailiff.
The bailiff demanded to be appointed in order to enforce a judgment of the Czech administrative authorities finding a defendant guilty of traffic offense and imposing a fine. The Court of First Instance declared a lack of its jurisdiction and in accordance with § 11(3) of Czech Statute No 99/1963, the Code of Civil Procedure (“Code of Civil Procedure”), and submitted the case to the Supreme Court to determine which court has authority to decide the case. The defendant has a place of habitual residence (i.e. domicile in the common law) in Slovakia and is not registered in the Central evidence of inhabitants of the Czech Republic. There is no European Union legislation concerning sanctioning traffic offenses.
The Supreme Court, however, had to solve the question of whether the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I Regulation”) applies. According to the Article 1(1) of the Brussels I Regulation it “shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters”. The Supreme Court, therefore, examined whether imposing a fine is a civil or commercial matter.
The Supreme Court quoted the Court of Justice, which in its decision LTU Lufttransportunternehmen GmbH & Co. KG v. Eurocontrol (C-29/76) concluded that “although certain judgments given in actions between a public authority and a person governed by private law may fall within the area of application of the Convention, this is not so where the public authority acts in the exercise of its powers”.
The Supreme Court, therefore, reached the conclusion that judgment in question is a matter of public law as the public authority acted in the exercise of its powers, even though procedural provisions of private law apply. Therefore, the Brussels I Regulation is not applicable. In matters of public law, the jurisdiction of the Czech courts is based on the constitutional law principle of state sovereignty over its territory and persons on its territory regardless of their citizenship. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that Czech courts have the international jurisdiction to enforce the judgment, but had to designate the local domestic jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court referred the case back to the Court of First Instance with the argument of the principle of efficiency while also acknowledging that the original penalty judgment was made in the territory that falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.