Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2021-04-13; 30 Cdo 1926/2020
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2021:30.CDO.1926.2020.1
Date: 2021-04-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82021CZ0413(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the correct procedural settlement of objection of international jurisdiction explained by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A natural person domiciled in Czechia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Okresní soud v Liberci (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’) against a company domiciled in Italy (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The plaintiff sought a commission payment related to the trade executed between the defendant and a third party, which the plaintiff allegedly agreed to as a sales representative.
The defendant relied on the prorogation of jurisdiction agreed in the trade contract and objected to the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts favouring the courts of Italy. The Court of First Instance refused to consider the objection referring to a decision of the Krajský soud v Ústí nad Labem – pobočka v Liberci (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) in other similar proceedings. The Court of First Instance further dealt only with the territorial jurisdiction – whether there is a better-placed court in the Czechia to hear the case – and finally declared a lack of its territorial jurisdiction in favour of another Czech court.
Following the appeal of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the first instance order and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance as the court having territorial jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal argued by Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and related case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court alleging that a failure to consider the jurisdiction objection significantly infringed the procedural law and influenced the outcome of the proceedings.
The Supreme Court cited and interpreted Articles 5, Article 7(1), 24, 26(1), 28 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and confirmed that the courts are obliged to address and explicitly decide on the objection of international jurisdiction. The courts are entitled to admit or deny the objection, based on their deliberation, taking into account European law and national procedural law. However, the courts must explain such a decision and cannot omit it by reference to other proceedings.
The approach of both lower courts was incorrect. According to Article 157(2) of the o.s.ř. (2), the court shall, in the grounds of its decision, specify what the plaintiff has claimed, how the defendant expressed its position, which facts has been proved and which has not, on which evidence it has based its findings and what considerations it has followed. The defendant’s position objecting to the jurisdiction created a legal question that had to be addressed, but the Court of Appeal failed to do so.
The Supreme Court annulled the lower courts’ decisions and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new hearing.
(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) Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).