Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2015-09-30; 29 Cdo 1029/2014
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2015:29.CDO.1029.2014.1
Date: 2015-09-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82015CZ0930(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between a Czech citizen, V.Z. (hereinafter the “plaintiff”) and an Austrian company, Metallbau Wastler (hereinafter the “defendant”). The plaintiff alleged that, on the basis of articles of association and a decision of a general meeting held in August 2007, he transferred his business shares of the Czech company Stavební technika to the defendant. In 2011, the plaintiff lodged an application for a European order for payment due to the unpaid price of the transfer.
The defendant submitted his statement of opposition and alleged the lack of jurisdiction of the Czech Court of First Instance, where the application had been lodged. According to the defendant, the courts in Austria should have jurisdiction based on Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation (1) (place of “domicile” of the company). The Court of First Instance and later the Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction of the Czech courts was given based on Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation, because the obligation should have been fulfilled in the Czech Republic.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). According to the defendant, the conclusion that the place of performance of the obligation is the same as the domicile of the plaintiff was wrong. According to Czech legislation, the amount as was the subject of this dispute should not be discharged in cash, but only by account transfer. Therefore, the place where the bank account of the defendant is situated should be relevant for establishing jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff did not prove that he had a bank account situated in the Czech Republic and therefore the Czech courts lack jurisdiction over the case.
The Supreme Court affirmed that the dispute, which concerns the price for transfer of business shares, falls under the application of the Brussels I Regulation. The jurisdiction of the Czech courts should be established neither on Articles 2(1), 22, 23 nor on Chapter II Section 3, 4 and 5 of the Brussels I Regulation. It is, however, possible to establish jurisdiction based on Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation, according to which “a person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued, in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question”. The place of performance of that obligation, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2), is to be determined in accordance with the law governing that obligation according to the conflict rules of the court before which the proceedings have been brought. According to the Czech ZMPSP (3), in the absence of choice of applicable law by the parties, their contractual relations shall be governed by the law whose application corresponds to the reasonable regulation of the relation concerned. In compliance with this principle, it is the Czech law which is applicable in this case. As for the place of performance of the obligation, the Supreme Court ruled that it must be based on the domicile of the plaintiff. The question of where the account is situated is irrelevant, as there are several legal options for how to pay an amount to a plaintiff regardless of whether or not they have a bank account (for example by postal order) and the limitations of cash transfers does not regard the Austrian legal entity.
The decisions of the courts of lower instances were held correct; therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal.
(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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 March 2013, Česká spořitelna, a.s. v Gerald Feichter, C-419/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:165, paragraph 54.
(3) Zákon č. 97/1963 Sb. o mezinárodním právu soukromém a procesním (Statute on international private law).