Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2017-10-18; 30 Cdo 4072/2017-174
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2017:30.CDO.4072.2017.1
Date: 2017-10-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82017CZ1018(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A Polish company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against a natural person domiciled in the Czech Republic, but not a Czech citizen (hereinafter ‘the defendant 1’) and a Romanian company (hereinafter ‘the defendant 2’). The plaintiff sought the payment of an unsettled partnership contribution from both defendants, as defendant 1 had transferred his shares to defendant 2 and, on the basis of Polish law, the defendants are therefore jointly responsible for the unpaid contribution.
The Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) terminated the proceedings, ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings and decided to refund the court fees of the plaintiff.
The Vrchní soud v Olomouci (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) changed the first instance order in such a way that the proceedings should not be terminated.
The order of the Court of Appeal was appealed to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’). In the appeal, defendant 1 alleged the incorrect conclusion of the Court of Appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the Czech courts, as he was not a citizen of the Czech Republic.
The Supreme Court held that the conclusion of the Court of Appeal of the Czech courts having jurisdiction correctly followed the previous case-law of the Supreme Court. The decisive provision establishing the jurisdiction of the Czech courts is Article 4(1) of the new Brussels I Regulation (1), according to which ‘persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State’. The core indicator is the domicile, not the citizenship of defendant 1. Since defendant 1 is domiciled in the Czech Republic, the legal conclusion of the Court of Appeal was correct.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal.
(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.