Nejvyšší soud; 2018-12-11; 20 Cdo 3689/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:20.CDO.3689.2018.1
Date: 2018-12-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82018CZ1211(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns a question of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts in recognition and enforcement proceedings resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A company domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 4 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for the recognition and enforcement of an order of the Bezirksgericht Floridsdorf (Austria). By this order the Austrian court recognized and declared enforceable in Austria a judgment of the Fürstliche Landgericht Vaduz (Liechtenstein), which obliged another company domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) to pay a claim of more than EUR 1,3 mil.
The Court of First Instance invoked the Brussels I Regulation (1) and declared the Austrian order enforceable in the Czech Republic.
The Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) cited Article 32 of the Brussels I Regulation, according to which ‘for the purposes of this Regulation, "judgment" means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member State, whatever the judgment may be called’ and confirmed the first instance conclusion.
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing an erroneous application of Article 32 of the Brussels I Regulation. According to the defendant, the Austrian declaration of the enforceability of Liechtenstein judgment cannot be subsumed under the meaning of ‘judgment’ as provided by Article 32. Following the request of the Supreme Court on quantification of the costs of the proceedings, the plaintiff asked the Supreme Court to refer a prejudicial question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on this matter.
The Supreme Court changed the conclusion of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the application for recognition and enforcement of Austrian judgment. The plaintiff appealed to the Ústavní soud (the Constitutional Court), which held a breach of constitutional principles and annulled the Supreme Court's judgment. The reason for the annulment was that the Supreme court omitted to deal with the proposal to refer a question to the CJEU.
The Supreme Court re-assessed the case and held that the Austrian declaration of enforcement of Liechtenstein judgment cannot be regarded as a ‘judgment’ pursuant to Article 32 of the Brussels I Regulation. The Austrian order says that it declares the enforceability in Austria pursuant to a mutual treaty on cooperation in judicial matters between Austria and Liechtenstein. This operative part of Austrian order cannot be considered as an enforceable title, which might have been declared enforceable in the Czech Republic. The enforceable title is the Liechtenstein judgment. Where a party seeks to enforce a foreign enforceable title, it must apply for the recognition and enforcement in the State where the enforcement shall take place. The plaintiff cannot ask for enforcement in two Member States of the European Union (Austria and the Czech Republic) at the same time. The plaintiff sought the recognition and enforcement of the judgment originated in non-Member State of the European Union with which the Czech Republic has no treaty on judicial cooperation, so the plaintiffs request can be considered as an abuse of law which cannot be protected by the courts.
With regards to the demand to refer a question to the CJEU, the Supreme Court cited Case C-283/91 (2) which laid down the principles for referring a question to the CJEU. The Supreme Court held that in the present case ‘the correct application of Community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt’ and refused to refer a question to the CJEU.
The Supreme Court annulled the decisions of the Court of First Instance as well as of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new hearing.
(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 6 October 1982, Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health, C-283/81, ECLI:EU:C:1982:335.