Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2014-08-22; 30 Cdo 3157/2013
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2014:30.CDO.3157.2013.1
Date: 2014-08-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82014CZ0822(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerned a claim (USD 100,000) regarding the protection of an individual and their moral rights against a company, showing on its website offensive statements and pictures of the plaintiff.
The Obvodní soud pro Prahu 4 (hereinafter “the distric court”) dismissed the motion of the plaintiff for an enforcement of the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Arizona for USD 100,000. The district court concluded that the decision of the Supreme Court of Arizona cannot be recognised for enforcement in the Czech Republic based on Article 54 of the ZMPS (1) as material reciprocity between the Czech Republic and Arizona has not been proven. The district court also argued that the conditions of Article 64(a) of the ZMPS have not been met as local jurisdiction is not based on the place where the damage has been caused, in case of protection of the individual, but exclusively based on the criterion of the general court of the defendant based on its place of residence.
The Městský soud Praha (hereinafter the “appellate court”) did not agree with the reasoning of the court of first instance, annulled its decision and referred the case back for a new decision. Its reasoning was that the jurisdiction of an American court can be based on Article 5 of the Brussels I Regulation (2). It pointed out previous case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in its cases C-68/93 (3) or C-509/09 (4). The appellate court did not agree with the argument that the Supreme Court of Arizona did not have jurisdiction as a lack of jurisdiction can be objected only as the first motion in a case. For the case of material reciprocity to the state of Arizona, the appellate court argued that only the fact that there was no Czech decision that was recognized by the courts in Arizona that was found cannot be the only reason for denying recognition, as it would lead to a circular problem, in which neither of the states could recognise the decision.
The defendant filled a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”). It argued that there is no international treaty between the Czech Republic and USA concerning the recognition and enforcement of court decisions. It also claimed that all actions connected to the claimed breach of moral rights had been done from the Czech Republic. The filling of a lawsuit in Arizona was a purposeful action, aimed at making the defence of the defendant harder.
The Supreme Court agreed with the argument of the appellate court that Article 5(3) of Brussels Regulation might be applicable. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the necessary conditions for the application of Article 5(3) is that the defendant must have a domicile in one of the Member States. The international jurisdiction of the courts of Arizona would be met only if the lawsuit were filed against a person residing in Arizona or with a place of residence in the USA. The appellate court did not examine this question and the conclusion is incomplete and therefore wrong. Also, the criteria for the application of Article 64(a), Article 37 and Article 54 of the ZMPS had not been examined thoroughly and the argument of the appellate court was not complete.
The Supreme Court therefore annulled the decision of the appellate court and the proceedings were referred back to the appellate court for the new decision.
(1) Zákon č. 97/1963 Sb. o mezinárodním právu procesním a soukromém (Statute on the Private International Law).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 March 1995, Fiona Shevill, Ixora Trading Inc., Chequepoint SARL a Chequepoint International Ltd proti Presse Alliance SA., C-68/93, ECLI:EU:C:1995:61.
(4) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 October 2011, eDate Advertising GmbH a další v. X a Société MGN LIMITED, C-509/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:685.