Nejvyšší soud; 2018-12-11; 30 Cdo 5019/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:30.CDO.5019.2017.1
Date: 2018-12-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82018CZ1211(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts over a company domiciled in the Isle of Man (hereinfater ‘the defendant’) resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
An insolvency administrator (of a Luxembourg-registered company) domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against the defendant requesting the payment of EUR 2,501,000 as a consequence of alleged unjust enrichment.
The Obvodní soud pro Prahu 4 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) held that the basis for assessment of jurisdiction over similar claims (with international element) is the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). However, since the defendant was not domiciled in a Member State of the European Union, then Article 6(1) of this Regulation must be applied, according to which ‘the jurisdiction … shall … be determined by the law of that Member State’. The Court of First Instance invoked § 86(2) of the o. s. ř. (2) and § 6 of the ZMPS (3), ascertained that the defendant has a property in the Czech Republic, and established the jurisdiction of the Czech courts.
The Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) fully upheld the first instance decision.
The defendant filled a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court alleging that the lower courts erroneously ignored the application of the law of the European Union. The defendant referred to the legal literature, according to which European law is exceptionally applicable also to persons domiciled in the Isle of Man.
The Supreme Court pointed to Article 355(5) TFEU (4), according to which ‘the Treaties shall apply … to the Isle of Man only to the extent necessary to ensure the implementation of the arrangements for those islands set out …in the [Accessions Treaty of 1972 (5)]’. The Brussels I Regulation (recast) does not fall within the meaning provided by Article 355(5) TFEU (it applies to matters such as free movement of goods or custom formalities). This is supported also by a legal literature. Furthermore, the literature provided by the defendant supports this conclusion too, however, it was erroneously interpreted by the defendant.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Isle of Man does not fall within the territorial applicability of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), confirmed that Article 6(1) of this Regulation justifies the application of national law in this case and confirmed the conclusions of both lower courts.
The cassation appeal was dismissed.
(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).
(3) Zákon č. 91/2012 Sb., o mezinárodním právu soukromém (Law no. 91/2012 on international private law).
(4) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
(5) Treaty of Accession of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom (1972).