Nejvyšší soud; 2019-06-20; 30 Cdo 3098/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2019:30.CDO.3098.2018.1
Date: 2019-06-20
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82019CZ0620(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction and of the nature of contractual relationship resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A company domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) entered into contract with a company domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), by which the plaintiff undertook to print, bind and deliver 2500 books in accordance with a template sent via e-mail by the defendant, and defendant undertook to pay for it. The plaintiff fulfilled its commitment, produced the books and delivered them to the defendant’s address in Germany. The contract remained unpaid, which resulted in action brought by the plaintiff before the Okresní soud v Zlíně (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), where the defendant objected, citing a lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts.
The Court of First Instance invoked Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and considered the relationship between the parties to be a contract for the provision of services, as the main subject was printing and book-binding. The jurisdiction then lies with the courts of plaintiff's seat, where these services were provided. The defendant's objection was dismissed, and jurisdiction of the Czech courts was established.
The Krajský soud v Brně (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) assessed mainly the nature of the contractual relationship. The Court of Appeal cited Case C-381/08 (2) of the Court of Justice of the European Union which interpreted the difference between a ‘contract for sale of goods‘ and ‘contract for provision of services‘ on the basis of the fact of who supplied all the materials from which the goods are manufactured, or most of them. In the present case, the defendant supplied only the electronic file constituting the content of the books, but the material (e.g. paper, colours) was supplied by the plaintiff. Contrary to the first instance conclusions, the Court of Appeal considered the present contract as one concerning ‘the sale of goods’ with the place where the goods were delivered to be indisputably in Germany. The first instance conclusion was changed, and the Czech courts were declared as lacking the jurisdiction.
The plaintiff filed a cassation appeal alleging an erroneous assessment of the place of performance of the obligation in question, as its obligation was only to print and bind the books, not to deliver them. The Supreme Court again assessed the nature of the relationship between the parties and cited Case C-381/08, which also provides that ‘where the purpose of contracts is the supply of goods to be manufactured or produced and, even though the purchaser has specified certain requirements with regard to the provision, fabrication and delivery of the components to be produced, the purchaser has not supplied the materials and the supplier is responsible for the quality of the goods and their compliance with the contract, those contracts must be classified as a "sale of goods"‘. The Supreme Court held that printing of the books from an electronic file provided by the defendant must be understood as contract for sale of goods.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal erred in consideration of the nature of the contract. However, the consideration of the Court of Appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the Czech courts was paradoxically correct. Article 7(1)(b) first indent of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) indicates that the decisive factor is ‘the place … where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered’. The contract clearly provides that the books shall be delivered to Germany and they also were delivered there. The jurisdiction then belongs to the German courts.
The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation 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.
(2) Judgment of the Court of 25 February 2010, Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems Srl., C-381/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:90.