Nejvyšší soud České republiky; 2012-09-27; 33 Cdo 3793/2011
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2012:33.CDO.3793.2011.1
Date: 2012-09-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82012CZ0927(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The plaintiff, the State Institute for Drug Control, demanded the defendant pay CZK 165,750 as a debt arising from an annual payment for a registration of drugs fee.
The court of first instance dismissed the case. The court asserted that this was a case with an international element as the defendant was a legal person residing in another Member State. According to Article 1 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), this Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters. The court of first instance applied this Article concluding that annual payment for the registration of drugs as both, the registration and payment of the fee, are obligatory, as determined by the public law – and therefore the case is not of a civil or commercial nature. The court did not agree that it was a case of reimbursement for damages to the State Institute for Drug Control arising from non-payment of the fee, but defined the claim as of a statutory nature.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance decision and its reasoning. The Court also added that in case C-814/79 (2) the Court of Justice of the European Union stated that to determine whether the case is of a civil or commercial matter, it is important to consider the relationship of the parties and the nature of the enforced obligation. In this particular dispute, the parties were not in an equal position and the defendant did not have any opportunity to influence the amount of the annual fee.
The plaintiff filed a cassation to the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter "the Supreme Court"). It argued that the State Institute for Drug Control does not authoritatively decide on obligations to pay fees. This decision can come only from courts, and therefore it was not in a position of public authority in this court proceeding.  It also pointed out that the fee was not tax, but rather a payment for services provided by the Institute in the process of drug registration. This annual payment is the value of the average yearly costs of the registration management, maintenance of databases, etc. Instead of individual payments, the Institute uses the form of an annual standardised payment.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case. According to the Supreme Court, there was no doubt that the plaintiff was bringing the case as a public authority. As is typical for public law, its position is therefore based on subordination, not equality as in private law. The Supreme Court did not find the argument of the plaintiff persuasive and asserted the principle of autonomy of the law of the EU.
(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.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 December 1980, Netherlands State v Reinhold Rüffer, C-814/79, ECLI:EU:C:1980:291.