Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2024-10-10; 27 Cdo 396/2024
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2024:27.CDO.396.2024.1
Date: 2024-10-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82024CZ1010(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerned the scope of an agreement conferring jurisdiction under Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1).
A Czech company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against a German company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking payment of EUR 141 095 as damages. The plaintiff alleged that, when paying the outstanding purchase price for a vehicle under a sales contract, it transferred the amount to a bank account stated on an invoice sent by email, but a third party had manipulated the defendant’s email communication and replaced the defendant’s account details with an account in Sweden.
The defendant objected to the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts, relying on a jurisdiction clause in the terms of sale providing that, for all present and future claims arising from the business relationship with traders, the court at the seller’s seat has exclusive jurisdiction.
The Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) upheld the objection and stayed the proceedings, holding that the clause satisfied the requirements of Article 25 and conferred jurisdiction on the German courts.
On appeal, the Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) reversed the decision and held that the clause did not cover the dispute. It reasoned that the plaintiff could not have foreseen, when agreeing to the clause, the defendant’s alleged failure to secure its invoicing processes, and that the damages claim did not have its origin in the parties’ contractual relationship.
On an appeal on a point of law by the defendant, the Supreme Court held that, under the case-law on Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the scope of a jurisdiction clause is determined in particular by its wording and the parties’ intention, in light of foreseeability. A clause may be framed in general terms for future disputes, including disputes of a tortious nature, provided that the dispute is connected with the legal relationship for which the clause was agreed; the legal classification of the claim as contractual or non-contractual is not decisive.
Applying those principles, the Supreme Court held that the wording used (‘all present and future claims arising from the business relationship’) indicated an intention to cover not only contractual claims but also other disputes connected with the sales relationship. The Supreme Court further considered that the alleged loss was causally connected with the performance of the sales contract, in particular, the defendant’s sending of an invoice for payment of the remaining purchase price. Without the sales contract, the plaintiff would have had no basis for the asserted damages claim (any claim would instead concern unjust enrichment). The plaintiff could therefore have foreseen a dispute arising from an error or manipulation in the bank account details communicated for payment.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and remitted the case 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 (recast).