Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2020-05-26; 30 Cdo 2084/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2020:30.CDO.2084.2019.1
Date: 2020-05-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82020CZ0526(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question on the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts in a consumer dispute resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A natural person domiciled in Czechia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) requested that the Krajský soud v Ústí nad Labem (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) issue a European Payment Order against a broker company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The plaintiff requested to pay EUR 14 634.15 as the sum allegedly earned by investing via so-called contracts for difference using the services of the defendant. The Court of First Instance declared that it did not have jurisdiction, but following the annulment of this conclusion by the Vrchní soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) the Court of First Instance reassessed the circumstances of the case. The Court of First Instance ascertained that the defendant is a broker company domiciled in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff concluded the contract with the defendant as a consumer, outside her trade or profession (the plaintiff was a student). Therefore, the Court of First Instance invoked Articles 17 and 18 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) concerning jurisdiction over consumer contracts and established the jurisdiction of the Czech courts.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the findings, the assessment of facts and the conclusions of the Court of First Instance.
The defendant filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court alleging an erroneous assessment of the jurisdictional question. Pursuant to the defendant, the plaintiff cannot be regarded as a consumer since the financial operations were very qualified and were made for financial profit.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the plaintiff acted as a consumer, outside her profession. The Supreme Court further cited Case C-297/14 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2) according to which, for the contract to be covered by Articles 17 to 19 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), ‘two elements must be present … first, that the professional 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 or to several States including that Member State and, secondly, that the contract at issue comes within the scope of such activities’. The defendant presents itself on its webpage as a ‘global leader in online investing’, and the phone contact covered all of Europe, the Near East and Africa. Moreover, the defendant was registered with the Czech National Bank as a foreign broker providing investment services in Czechia. Therefore, the two elements requested by the cited case-law were met and the jurisdiction over this case shall be governed by Section 4 (Jurisdiction over consumer contracts) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The jurisdiction of the Czech courts is therefore well established since the consumer may, pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Regulation, ‘bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the Member State in which that party is domiciled or, regardless of the domicile of the other party, in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled’.
The cassation appeal of the defendant 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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 December 2015, Rüdiger Hobohm v Benedikt Kampik Ltd & Co. KG and Others, C-297/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:844, point 27.