Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2024-02-27; 27 Cdo 2345/2023
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — CZ:NS:2024:27.CDO.2345.2023.1
Date: 2024-02-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82024CZ0227(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns a question of local jurisdiction referred to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
An individual domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed a claim for damages against a company domiciled in France (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), the main shareholder of a Czech company in which the plaintiff holds shares. The defendant objected to the local jurisdiction of the Krajský soud v Hradci Králové (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), and the objection was upheld.
The Court of First Instance assessed jurisdiction under Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and held that local jurisdiction should also be based on Czech law, in particular, Section 1955(1) of the o. z. (2) according to which ‘a pecuniary obligation shall be enforced at the place where the creditor has his domicile or seat’. Since the plaintiff is domiciled in Prague, the court in Prague should have local jurisdiction.
The Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) rejected the plaintiff’s argument that there was another case against the same defendant in which the Court of First Instance had already confirmed its jurisdiction, upheld the conclusion of the Court of First Instance that it had no jurisdiction and confirmed the transfer of the case to Prague.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts erred in assessing the question of jurisdiction by basing jurisdiction on the plaintiff’s domicile. The place of performance of the obligation in question could have been determined according to the bank account where the defendant is obligated to pay the debt.
The Supreme Court first confirmed the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts, as the defendant did not contest the international jurisdiction in its first appearance. However, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal had incorrectly assessed the local jurisdiction. If the place of performance of the obligation is a bank account, the local jurisdiction is to be determined based on the location of the branch of the relevant bank. The lower courts did not address the question of the location of the bank branch where the plaintiff’s account is located, and therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeal should be reversed.
The Supreme Court also considered the issue of parallel proceedings in similar cases brought by different plaintiffs against the same defendant. In one of these cases, the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Court of First Instance had local jurisdiction to hear the case. According to the law, all lawsuits filed by individual security holders should be resolved in a single common proceeding, resulting in a final decision on the merits.
Therefore, the Supreme Court held the appeal founded and decided to amend the decision of the Court of Appeal in such a way that the lack of local jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance is not declared, and the case is not transferred to the court in Prague.
(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).
(2) Zákon č. 89/2012 Sb., občanský zákoník (Law No. 89/2012 Coll., Civil Code).