Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2021-10-19; 23 Cdo 823/2020
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2021:23.CDO.823.2020.1
Date: 2021-10-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82021CZ1019(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the question of international jurisdiction in loan-related dispute, addressed to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A bank domiciled in Czechia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). It sought payment from a natural person (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) of an unpaid debt arising from a loan contract.
The Court of First Instance granted the application, and the Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) further confirmed the obligation of the defendant to pay his debt. The Court of Appeal based the jurisdiction of the Czech courts on Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), considering that the loan was concluded in Czechia because of the plaintiff’s registered office in Prague. The fact that the defendant had a bank account opened by the plaintiff’s foreign branch in Slovakia, where the defendant resided at the time of the contract conclusion, was irrelevant.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court alleging an erroneous assessment of the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts. The defendant complained that he must be understood as a consumer. The Court of Appeal should have applied Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation because the plaintiff, in compliance with the cited article, directs its commercial activities also to Slovakia. Following Article 16(2), the proceedings may be brought only in the courts of the Member State where the consumer was domiciled.
The Supreme Court explained the concept of ‘person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member State’ as stipulated by Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation. The Court of Appeal disregarded this provision because the plaintiff did not officially provide such loan contracts through its Slovakian branch, i.e. it does not pursue commercial or professional activities concerning this specific type of loan contract in Slovakia. However, according to the Supreme Court, the lower court failed to address the second condition set by Article 15(1)(c), i.e. whether the plaintiff ‘directed’ its activities relating to providing such loans to Slovakia. In other words, whether the plaintiff was prepared to enter into such contracts with Slovak consumers.
The Supreme Court concluded that, although the plaintiff did not directly grant such loans in Slovakia when the contract was agreed upon, it still directed its commercial activities to Slovakia concerning the possibility of concluding such contracts. The Court of Appeal, therefore, erred in its assessment of all aspects relating to the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts.
Consequently, Supreme Court annulled the Court of Appeal’s decision and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings.
(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.