Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2013-06-05; 21 Cdo 2394/2012
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2013:21.CDO.2394.2012.1
Date: 2013-06-05
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82013CZ0605(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a claim (of CZK 200,000) of the savings bank towards a former employee. This claim was based on losses incurred during the shiftwork of the employee, who had previously signed an agreement of material responsibility to all assets entrusted to her.
The court of first instance decided in favour of the plaintiff. It used a procedural method called a “judgment for default” as the lawsuit was delivered to the defendant but she did not attend a court meeting without a prior apology. This means, under the OSŘ (1), that claims of the plaintiff are undisputed. The defendant appealed, but the appellate court confirmed the lower court’s decision. It was found that the defendant is a citizen of Slovakia and clarification was required on the jurisdiction of Czech courts in accordance with the Brussels I Regulation (2).
The plaintiff filed a cassation. She argued that she is a citizen of Slovakia and she had only a temporary stay in the Czech Republic, and at the same time argued that this temporary stay cannot be per analogiam considered as a place of residence as defined in the statute on the evidence of citizens. She also argued that the court should have attempted delivery of proceedings notification to the address of her employer and should also not have attempted delivery to the address of her temporary stay.
The Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter "the Supreme Court") found that the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts was based on Article 18(1) and Article 20(1) of the Brussels I Regulation – a Member State in which the employee is domiciled. According to the Article 59(1) of the Brussels I Regulation the question of domicile is to be determined by the internal law of the Member State. Under Czech law, a domicile is a place where a person stays with an intent to do so permanently. It is therefore possible for a person to be domiciled in multiple places at once. However, a place of residence is a different term. A place of residence is a domicile only in the case that a person stays here with an intent to do so permanently. The question of domicile was, however, unquestioned and the Supreme Court stated that the defendant had a domicile in the Czech Republic and the Czech courts therefore had the international jurisdiction to rule in the case.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court stated that the lawsuit had not been lawfully delivered and that the court of first instance should not have used the judgment for default. A lawsuit has to be delivered, under Czech procedural law, primarily to the address specified by the person for the delivery of documents. If there is no such address it shall be delivered to the address of the place of residence. There was no such address in the case of this defendant. In such cases, a person is not considered to have a delivery address in the Czech Republic and the only possibility to deliver an official document is therefore in person. This did not occur, and the Supreme Court therefore stated that the procedural law was substantially breached.
The Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the lower courts and the proceedings were referred back to the court of first instance.
(1) Zákon č. 99/1963 Sb. Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.