Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2020-09-04; 30 Cdo 4162/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2020:30.CDO.4162.2019.1
Date: 2020-09-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82020CZ0904(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the question of international jurisdiction in the case of several defendants, resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A Czech citizen (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought a case before the Okresní soud Praha-západ (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’) and sought the protection of personality and compensation for non-material damage to his honour and reputation, allegedly caused by a registered association domiciled in Czechia (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) and two natural persons domiciled abroad (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’ and ‘defendant 3’) by the publication of defamatory statements about him on the Internet.
The action regards a civil liability for non-material damage, and the harmful event occurred or may have occurred on Czech territory, where defendant 1 is domiciled. According to the Court of First Instance, the jurisdiction over defendant 1 is therefore based on Article 5(1) and Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The jurisdiction over defendants 2 and 3 is given pursuant to Article 8(1) of the cited Regulation, according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings’.
The case was further assessed by the Krajský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), where defendants 1 and 3 appealed the substance of the action and defendant 2 appealed the jurisdiction of the Czech courts. The Court of Appeal confirmed the jurisdiction over defendant 1 based on its domicile. The jurisdiction over defendant 3 was based on Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), since the defendant, by appealing the substance of the action, entered the appearance before the Czech courts but did not contest the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction over defendant 2 was then derived from the confirmed jurisdiction over defendant 3, referring to Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The conclusions of the Court of First Instance were therefore upheld.
Defendant 2 filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court alleging an erroneous application of Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The Supreme Court recalled its previous case-law and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The rules of special jurisdiction provided by the Brussels I Regulation (recast) must be interpreted restrictively and cannot give rise to an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by that Regulation (2).
The Supreme Court confirmed that Recitals 15 and 16 as well as Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation provide a possibility to establish jurisdiction over a defendant domiciled abroad, where he is one of a number of defendants, by jurisdiction given over the other defendants domiciled in the given Member State. In the current case, the Court of Appeal derived the jurisdiction over defendant 2 from the jurisdiction over defendant 3. However, neither defendant 2 nor defendant 3 are domiciled in Czechia. The application of Article 8(1) to both of them goes beyond the principle justifying to hear the claims together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments. Such provision may be applied only if at least one of them was domiciled in Czechia.
The Supreme Court fully agreed with the cassation appeal, annulled the order of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to that court for further proceedings.
(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.
(2) See e.g. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2009, Zuid-Chemie BV v Philippo's Mineralenfabriek NV/SA, C-189/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:475, paragraph 22.