Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2012-11-29; 33 Cdo 2966/2011
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2012:33.CDO.2966.2011.1
Date: 2012-11-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82012CZ1129(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for EUR 2_935.25 that the defendants had received from selling their property rights for immovable property in the Czech Republic.
The court of first instance dismissed the case as it found that the Czech courts do not have the international jurisdiction to decide the case. The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision. Both courts concluded that the plaintiff was a legal person residing in the Czech Republic and that the defendants are citizens of the Netherlands with permanent residence in this state, but with temporary residence in the Czech Republic. It was clear that it was a civil matter within the terms of Article 1 of the Brussels I Regulation (1).
The Court of Appeal concluded that it was not possible to apply Articles 22, 24 and 6(4) of the Brussels I Regulation. It was also evident that defendants are citizens of the Netherlands and permanently reside in this Member State. It is therefore clear in the eyes of the lower courts that based on the ObchZ (2), the place of delivery is in the Netherlands, because the parties did not consent to another place of delivery.
The plaintiff filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter "the Supreme Court"). It argued that defendants lived in the Czech Republic and owned immovable property in the Czech Republic.
The Supreme Court annulled the decisions of lower courts and decided that the proceedings should continue at the court of first instance. Its reasoning was that any decision regarding proceeding conditions (including the international jurisdiction) must be made based on reliable information. According to the Supreme Court, the lower courts failed to decide correctly. Simply the fact that defendants have their residence in another Member State is not enough to conclude that they also do not have their residence in the Czech Republic and therefore the conditions of international jurisdiction may still be met. It is possible to reside in multiple places with intent to do so permanently according to the Brussels I Regulation. If the lower courts restricted their reasoning to the fact that defendants reside in Netherlands and did not take into account that they (among other things) acquired immovable property in the Czech Republic and did not examine the question thoroughly, their reasoning is incomplete and therefore wrong.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. (2) Zákon č. 513/1991 Sb. Obchodní zákoník (Commercial Code).