Nejvyšší soud Brno, usnesení ze dne 26/07/2011 32 Cdo 1401/2011 VGD-AUDIT, s.r.o. against D.N.C.
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2011:32.CDO.1401.2011.1
Date: 2011-07-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82011CZ0726(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff, a company registered in Czech Republic, provided the defendant, an Irish national temporarily resident in the Czech Republic, with financial and tax audit services in respect of a limited company with its seat in the Czech Republic. In proceedings for non-payment of the amount due for services rendered, the defendant, who claimed not to be domiciled in the Czech Republic, contested the jurisdiction of the Czech courts. The Prague 9 District Court (CZ) ruled that the Czech courts had no jurisdiction. On appeal, the Municipal Court of Prague (CZ) confirmed that decision, ruling that a Czech court has jurisdiction over a person domiciled in another Member State where a claim is based on a contract under which services were provided on the territory of Czech Republic, unless the defendant contests the jurisdiction on the basis that he is domiciled in another Member State. The plaintiff filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court (CZ).
The Supreme Court (CZ) stresses that the plaintiff may make use of alternative special jurisdiction rules. If the plaintiff does so and it is justified, the courts designated in accordance with Article 5 or possibly Article 6 of the Brussels I Regulation have jurisdiction instead of the courts of the state where the defendant is domiciled, and the defendant has no basis on which to object. The Brussels I Regulation does not give the defendant any procedural tool to negate a justified choice of court made by the plaintiff under the rules of special jurisdiction. The Supreme Court (CZ) reverses the decisions of the Municipal court and of the court of first instance, returning the case to the court of first instance.