Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2020-07-22; 30 Nd 220/2020
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2020:30.ND.220.2020.3
Date: 2020-07-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82020CZ0722(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international and local jurisdiction of the Czech courts resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A consumer protection organisation domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action directly to the Supreme Court based on Article 11(3) of the o.s.ř. (1), according to which the Supreme Court decides which court shall have the local jurisdiction in cases, where the Czech courts have international jurisdiction, but the circumstances of the case cannot establish the local jurisdiction of a specific court.
The dispute concerns an action against a company domiciled in Luxembourg (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), who operates a web page with online dating services. The plaintiff alleged that the general conditions of the defendant contain unfair terms under which the defendant automatically prolonged the paid membership for its customers and automatically withdrew payments from their bank accounts without the prior consent of the customers. According to the plaintiff, the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2).
The Supreme Court cited the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, especially Case C-548/12, which suggests that the concept of matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) ‘covers all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and which do not concern matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 7(1) of this Regulation’ (3) and Case C-167/00, according to which ‘a preventive action brought by a consumer protection organisation for the purpose of preventing a trader from using terms considered to be unfair in contracts with private individuals is a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ (4). The Supreme Court concluded that the international jurisdiction of the Czech courts is given.
The Supreme Court further explained that Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) offers a solution not only for the international jurisdiction but also for the local jurisdiction, particularly by its wording referring to ‘courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’. Since the alleged harm occurred itself directly in the customers’ bank accounts, by unfair withdrawals, the jurisdiction lies with the courts for the place where any of the banks which hold these bank accounts has its registered offices. Article 9 of the o.s.ř. then provides that jurisdiction lies with the district courts.
The Supreme Court referred the case to the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (District court Prague 1), which shall hear the case as the Court of First Instance.
(1) Občanský soudní řád (Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) 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.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 March 2014, Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL and Karsten Fräßdorf, C-548/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:148, point 20.
(4) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 October 2002, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Karl Heinz Henkel, C-167/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:555, point 50.