Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2015-12-16; 30 Cdo 1362/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2015:30.CDO.1362.2015.1
Date: 2015-12-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82015CZ1216(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a debt of CZK 3_331_347.80 arising from legal services provided by the plaintiff. Invoices for this debt were not payed.
The defendant objected, citing the lack of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts. It argued that its domicile is in Switzerland and therefore, the New Lugano Convention (1) should apply. In the defendant’s opinion, the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts cannot be based on the rules of this Convention.
The Court of First Instance however concluded that the Czech courts had jurisdiction based on Article 5(3) and Article 6 of this Convention. The appellate court confirmed the decision. It added, that the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts could also be based on Article 24 of New Lugano Convention, because the defendant did not object to the jurisdiction of the Czech courts at the beginning of the proceedings. It did so later – specifically on the third proceeding. The interpretation of Article 24 of the New Lugano Convention is the same as interpretation of Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (2).
The defendant filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). It argued that the courts of lower instance failed to refer for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union or to argue that it was not needed. It also argued that the defendant visited the first proceeding only to object on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction. And its first motion in the case was a document sent on 8 June 2012 arguing that the plaintiff did not have a claim against the defendant.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case. Attendance at court proceedings is taken to mean consent to the jurisdiction of the court, based on Article 24 of either the Brussels I Regulation or New Lugano Convention. The Supreme Court argued, citing cases C-112/13 (3) and C-111/09 (4) based on which, a party is taken to be non-consenting only if it objects to the lack jurisdiction of a proceeding, if it is attending the proceeding. A specific moment, up to which jurisdiction can be objected, may be specified by the procedural law of a Member State. The defendant argued at the first proceeding that there was a lack of merit in the case, but did not object due to a lack of jurisdiction. Therefore the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts was based on Article 24 of the New Lugano Convention. The Supreme Court therefore did consider or rule on other possible sources of international jurisdiction.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Lugano, 2007).
(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.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 September 2014, A v B and Others, C-112/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2195.
(4) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 May 2010, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas, C-111/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:290.