2019/06/20 – 30 Cdo 4402/2017 (summary)

Resolution of the Supreme Court of 20 June 2019, Ref. No. 30 Cdo 4402/2017
(International jurisdiction, default interest, matters relating to a contract)

The claimant in the present case sought from the court to impose on the defendant an obligation to pay him a default interest from the delayed payment for the compensation for weakened social capability. The District Court in Břeclav terminated the proceedings – this conclusion was confirmed also by the Regional Court in Brno. The District Court in Břeclav was of the opinion that Slovak courts should have the jurisdiction to hear the case instead of Czech courts since the jurisdiction should be determined according to the seat of the defendant, which was, in the present case, the Slovak Republic. The Regional Court in Brno confirmed the decision stressing that the case concerns an independent claim and should not be accumulated with another. It was also of the opinion that the present claim is not the claim from the individual employment contract in the meaning of Art. 20 (1) Brussels I bis Regulation.

In the extraordinary appeal proceedings, the Supreme Court stressed that the original claim for compensation was based on the existence of the employment relationship between the defendant and the claimant, and the reason for the creation of the claim was the accident at work. The original claim of the claimant thus arose from the individual contract of employment in the meaning of Art. 20 (1) of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I bis Regulation”). The Supreme Court then recalled that legal regulation in Art. 20 (1) of Brussels I bis Regulation is a complex and exhaustive and if the present claim was a claim from an individual contract of employment, the international jurisdiction of Czech courts could not be considered under Art. 7 (2) of Brussels I bis Regulation. The Supreme Court then assessed the notion “matters relating to a contract” which should, as to its scope, have the same interpretative meaning. The phrase in Art. 20 (1) of Brussels I bis Regulation should be interpreted at least equally broadly as in Art. 7 (1) since the objective of the Regulation is to strengthen the protection of an employee as a weaker party. The Supreme Court, referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, stressed that this notion should be interpreted independently in order to ensure its uniform application. Furthermore, this notion encompasses all the obligations having their origin in the contract where non-fulfilment of such obligations is claimed in support of the claimant’s action. According to the case-law, the notion “matters relating to a contract” encompasses equally claims for damages if they originated in the breach of the contractual obligation. It flows equally from the Regulation No. 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) that the law applicable to a contract shall govern also the consequences of total or partial breach of obligations, including the assessment of damages. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the claims for breach of contract, whether the compensation for damages arising in connection to the contract or obligations to pay the default interest originating in the delayed performance having its basis in the contract, should be also qualified as claims in the matters relating to a contract in the meaning of Brussels I bis Regulation. The conclusion of the Supreme Court, however, did not prove that Czech courts have jurisdiction and it left further assessment for the lower courts.