Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2017-10-31; 30 Cdo 3683/2016-234
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2017:30.CDO.3683.2016.1
Date: 2017-10-31
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82017CZ1031(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A Slovak company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) sued a Czech company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) for a payment of EUR 191.323,65.
The Okresní soud ve Vsetíně (‘the Court of First Instance’) declared the lack of its jurisdiction over this dispute and stayed the proceedings. An order of the Krajský soud v Ostravě (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), given on a plaintiff's appeal, changed the first instance order in such a way that the proceedings should not be stayed.
The order of the Court of Appeal was appealed by the defendant before the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
The Supreme Court cited Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), according to which ‘a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply where appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction, or where another court has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22’. The Supreme Court cited several of its previous orders applying this provision, demonstrating that the defendant’s appearance in a court implies its consent with the jurisdiction of that court, unless it challenges the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court further specified this principle by the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-150/80 (2), according to which 'if the challenge to jurisdiction is not preliminary to any defence as to the substance it may not in any event occur after the making of the submissions which under national procedural law are considered to be the first defence addressed to the court seised’. In the present case, the defendant provided its defence to the action (denying the claims) in the first instance proceedings without challenging the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found no reason to change its established practice and consider the present case differently.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
(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 24 June 1981, Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Pierre Jacqmain, C-150/80, ECLI:EU:C:1981:148, paragraph 16.