Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2022-03-15; 30 Cdo 1489/2021
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2022:30.CDO.1489.2021.1
Date: 2022-03-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82022CZ0315(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction referred to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A Czech company in liquidation (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) claimed damages in the amount of CZK 1,9 million for the unfair competitive behaviour of the defendants in taking over the sale of specific products in the Czech Republic following the termination of an exclusive distribution agreement between the plaintiff and defendant 2. The plaintiff relied on Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast)(1) to establish the jurisdiction of the Czech courts. Defendant 2, on the other hand, relied on Article 25 of the Regulation and objected to jurisdiction based on the contract with the plaintiff, suggesting that the German courts had jurisdiction. The Krajský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) upheld the objection and terminated the proceedings in respect of defendant 2.
The Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) modified the first instance conclusion and reopened the proceedings. According to the Court of Appeal, the subject matter of the present proceedings does not concern the assessment of the earlier contract between the parties but the alleged delict of subsequent unfair competition. The provisions on prorogation of jurisdiction set out in Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) do not apply. The jurisdiction of the Czech courts is based on Article 7(2) and Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
Defendant 2 lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court alleging a misapplication of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
According to the Supreme Court, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has established a doctrine of severability of a jurisdiction agreement from the contract in which it is concluded. The interpretation of the choice of forum clause must therefore be based primarily on the intention of the parties and on the wording of the clause. The aim is to avoid a party being taken by surprise by the assignment of jurisdiction on a particular forum for all disputes which may arise out of its relationship with the other party to the contract and which arise out of its relationship other than that in connection with which the jurisdiction agreement was made. The CJEU has repeatedly addressed the question of the applicability of prorogation clauses in contracts concerning actions for non-contractual liability claims. A jurisdiction agreement which refers in the abstract to all disputes arising out of contractual relations, does not apply to a dispute concerning liability in tort or delict. The injured party could not have reasonably foreseen such a dispute at the time of the agreement.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the present proceedings also involved defendant 1, which was not a party to the disputed contract. Furthermore, the proceedings relate to circumstances that occurred only after the termination of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant 2. Therefore, the jurisdiction agreement in the contract between them does not affect the present proceedings.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal in cassation as unfounded.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.