Top

Published in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Czech Republic: The Treatment of Optional and Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements

Authors : Naděžda Rozehnalová, Silvie Mahdalová, Lucie Zavadilová

Published in: Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This chapter deals with optional choice of court agreements from the perspective of the Czech law. First, it describes the historical context and development of the legal approaches with regard to choice of court agreements. The authors present relevant legal sources regulating this particular issue in cross-border cases. Even though the Czech Republic applies primarily the European Union legislation, the authors focus on the legal regulation adopted in the Czech Private International Law Act. This chapter contribution addresses whether the Czech national legislation allows the parties to conclude optional choice of court agreements in international cases, what is the character of these clauses and whether they are expressly stated in the Czech Private International Law Act. The authors deal also with asymmetrical choice of court agreements, especially their legal effect. Finally, the authors evaluate the efficiency of the national regulation and propose necessary modifications.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter People’s Republic of China (PRC): Optional Choice of Court Agreements in the Vibrant Age

next chapter France: A Game of Asymmetries, Optional and Asymmetrical Choice of Court Agreements Under French Case Law

Act No. 519/1991 Coll., amending the Civil Procedure Code. The term “commercial relations” was later replaced with the term “relations between entrepreneurs within the framework of their business activities”.

Section 623 of the Act No. 142/1950 Coll., the Civil Procedure Code, as subsequently amended.

Kučera (1980), pp. 371–374.

Convention on the Settlement by Arbitration of Civil Disputes Arising out of Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation Relationships (Moscow, 26 May 1972). The Convention was revoked in 1995 in Moscow. See: Sedláček and Steiner (1975), p. 157; Sedláček (1982), p. 181.

Růžička (2003), pp. 11–55.

United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958). This Convention has been effective for the former Czechoslovakia since 10th October 1959.

I.e. after the so-called Velvet Revolution when not only political changes but also significant changes of legal order occurred.

Section 37, paragraphs 2, 3 of the Act No. 97/1963 Coll., on Private International Law and Rules of International Procedure, as subsequently amended (hereinafter referred to as Private International Law Act 1963). See also: Bělohlávek (2004), p. 679; Rozehnalová (2013d), pp. 53–100.

Kučera and Tichý (1989), pp. 224–225; Rozehnalová (1997), pp. 93, 104–105; Bříza (2012), p. 180.

More to the determination of a legally significant international element and discussions with regard to this issue see: Kučera and Tichý (1989), pp. 24–25; Pauknerová and Pfeiffer (2013), p. 5; Kučera and Pauknerová (2015), pp. 23–25; Rozehnalová (2016), pp. 202–206.

Act No. 91/2012 Coll., on Private International Law, as subsequently amended (hereinafter referred to as the Private International Law Act).

Jirsa (2016), p. 69.

Kučera and Tichý (1989), p. 224; Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 578; Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), p. 502.

Kučera and Tichý (1989), pp. 221–222; Rozehnalová (2013a), pp. 572–573; Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), p. 499.

Javůrková (2009), p. 414; Novotný (2009), pp. 580–581.

Rozehnalová (2013a), pp. 576–577; Bříza and Břicháček (2014b), pp. 501–502.

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 (recast) (hereinafter referred to as Brussels I Recast Regulation).

Section 125 of the Private International Law Act.

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (hereinafter referred to as Brussels I Regulation).

This states that “Jurisdiction of the Czech courts in matters of the law of obligations and of other property rights may be established also by means of a written agreement of the parties. Nevertheless the substantive (subject-matter) jurisdiction of the Czech courts shall not be altered by such an agreement.”

Rozehnalová (2013a), pp. 566–580; Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), pp. 499–504.

Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (Hague, 30 June 2005) (hereinafter referred to as Hague Choice of Court Convention of 2005); Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (hereinafter referred to as Lugano II Convention); Treaty between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and Mongolia on the Provision of Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (Ulan Bator, 15 October 1976) (hereinafter referred to as bilateral treaty with Mongolia).

Rozehnalová (2013a), pp. 571–576; Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), pp. 498, 500, 504.

This provides that “(1) Jurisdiction of a foreign court in matters of the law of obligations and of other property rights may be determined by means of a written agreement of the parties. In matters of insurance and consumer contracts such an agreement shall be admissible only after a dispute has arisen, or, provided it enables only the policyholder, the insured, another beneficiary, the injured or the consumer to initiate proceedings in the courts of another state.

(2) If jurisdiction of a foreign court is determined pursuant to the paragraph 1, jurisdiction of the Czech courts shall thereby be excluded; a Czech court shall nevertheless hear the case provided:

(a)

the parties unanimously declare their intent not to insist on the agreement,

(b)

a judgment given abroad would not be recognized in the Czech Republic,

(c)

a foreign court declined to hear the case, or

(d)

a jurisdiction agreement is contrary to the public policy.”

Bříza (2012), p. 180.

Rozehnalová (2013b), pp. 580–594; Bříza (2014), pp. 512–519.

Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 585.

See section 88 of the Private International Law Act: “(1) Jurisdiction of the Czech courts in labour matters may be established also by means of a written agreement of the parties. Nevertheless, the substantive (subject-matter) jurisdiction of the Czech courts shall not be altered by such an agreement.

(2) If the Czech courts shall otherwise have jurisdiction, jurisdiction of foreign courts may be agreed upon in writing only after a dispute has arisen, or, provided the agreement enables only an employee to initiate proceedings in the courts of another state. The provision of section 86, paragraph 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis.”

Rozehnalová (2013c), pp. 609–615; Bříza (2014), pp. 544–546.

The Hague Choice of Court Convention of 2005; the Lugano II Convention; the bilateral treaty with Mongolia; Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 19 October 2005 (hereinafter referred to as EU–Denmark Agreement).

Rozehnalová (2013b), pp. 585–586.

Kučera and Tichý (1989), pp. 215–227.

Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 570.

Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), p. 504.

Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 587.

Rozehnalová (2013b), pp. 587–588; Bříza (2014), pp. 517–519.

Keyes and Marshall (2015), p. 350.

Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (hereinafter referred to as Brussels Convention).

Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), pp. 498, 500, 504.

On this debate see: Magnus and Mankowski (2016), pp. 1014–1016.

See also the solution given by European Court of Justice in Sanicentral GmbH v René Collin (Case 25/79 of 13 November 1979).

Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 574. On this question see also: Bříza (2012), pp. 130–131.

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal, 28 May 1999), exhaustively listed fora in article 33.

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw, 12 October 1929), article 28.

Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) (Geneva, 19 May 1956), article 31.1.

Bělohlávek (2012), pp. 971 et seq; Rozehnalová (1997), p. 91; Kučera and Tichý (1989), p. 223; Bříza (2012), pp. 169, 179; Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 568.

Kučera and Tichý (1989), p. 224.

Bříza (2012), p. 179; Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), p. 503.

Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 568.

Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 569; Rozehnalová (2013b), pp. 585–586.

Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 586.

Bříza and Břicháček (2014b), pp. 513–514.

Rozehnalová (2013c), pp. 612–613; Bříza (2014), p. 546.

Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 587.

Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 586.

Belloňová (2013), pp. 74–75; Břicháček (2014a), pp. 68–69.

Bříza (2012), pp. 168–169, 171.

Jirmanová (2013), pp. 109–110; Břicháček (2014b), pp. 101–105.

Act No. 99/1963, the Civil Procedure Code, as subsequently amended (hereinafter referred to as Civil Procedure Code).

This provides that “Parties in matters concerning relations between entrepreneurs within the framework of their business activities may agree in writing to the local jurisdiction of another court of first instance, unless the law provides for exclusive local jurisdiction.”

Jirsa (2016), pp. 68–69.

Novotný (2009), pp. 580–581; Přidal (2013), p. 315; Javůrková (2009), p. 414.

Novotný (2009), pp. 580–581; Přidal (2013), pp. 315–316; Jirsa (2016), pp. 68–69.

Jirsa (2016), pp. 69–70.

Javůrková (2009), pp. 414–415.

Judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague of 11 July 2005, No. 16 Co 144/2005. See: Jirsa (2016), p. 69.

Jirsa (2016), p. 68.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of 29 August 2002, No. 29 Odo 524/2002. See: Rozehnalová (1997), pp. 105–106; Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), p. 502.

Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 570.

Kučera and Tichý (1989), p. 225.

Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 587.

Rozehnalová (2013b), pp. 587–588; Bříza (2014), pp. 517–519.

Bříza (2014), p. 517.

Kučera and Tichý (1989), p. 225; Rozehnalová (2013b), pp. 581–582; Bříza (2014), p. 517; Kučera and Pfeiffer (2015), p. 315.

Keyes and Marshall (2015), pp. 353–355.

Kučera and Tichý (1989), p. 224; Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 570; Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), p. 504.

However, application of this provision, similarly to section 85 of the Private International Law Act, is limited with regard to the scope of application of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. In addition, formulation of the second paragraph of this section does not raise those questions, which are mentioned in relation to section 86.

I. e. a situation which does not fall within the scope of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the Lugano II Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention of 2005, and the EU–Denmark Agreement.

The Explanatory Report to the Act does not expressly mention weaker parties. However, commentaries associate the text with position of a weaker party. Some doubts were expressed with regard to insurance issues.

Ahmed (2017), pp. 403–425.

Ahmed M (2017) The legal regulation and enforcement of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements in the European Union. Eur Bus Law Rev 28:403–425CrossRef

Belloňová P (2013) § 8 Základní ustanovení. In: Pauknerová M, Rozehnalová N, Zavadilová M et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague, pp 73–76

Bělohlávek AJ (2004) Zákon o rozhodčím řízení a o výkonu rozhodčích nálezů: komentář. C. H. Beck, Prague

Bělohlávek AJ (2012) Procesní smlouvy a kvalifikace rozhodčích a prorogačních smluv. Aplikace hmotněprávní úpravy na smlouvy s procesním účinkem pro futuro. Právník, pp 971–1101

Břicháček T (2014a) § 8 Základní ustanovení. In: Bříza P, Břicháček P, Fišerová Z et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. C. H. Beck, Pilsen, pp 66–71

Břicháček T (2014b) § 15 (Důvody pro odepření uznání cizího rozhodnutí). In: Bříza P, Břicháček P, Fišerová Z et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. C. H. Beck, Pilsen, pp 100–108

Bříza P (2012) Volba práva a volba soudu v mezinárodním obchodě. C. H. Beck, Prague

Bříza P (2014) § 88 Pravomoc. In: Bříza P, Břicháček P, Fišerová Z et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. C. H. Beck, Pilsen, pp 544–547

Bříza P, Břicháček T (2014a) § 85 Pravomoc. In: Bříza P, Břicháček P, Fišerová Z et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. C. H. Beck, Pilsen, pp 498–511

Bříza P, Břicháček T (2014b) § 86 Sjednání příslušnosti zahraničního soudu. In: Bříza P, Břicháček P, Fišerová Z et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. C. H. Beck, Pilsen, pp 512–525

Javůrková N (2009) § 89a (Dohoda sporných stran o příslušnosti soudu) In: David L, Ištvánek F, Javůrková N et al. Občanský soudní řád: komentář: I. díl (§ 1 až 200za). Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague, pp 414–416

Jirmanová M (2013) § 15 (Odepření uznání cizího rozhodnutí). In: Pauknerová M, Rozehnalová N, Zavadilová M et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague, pp 107–115

Jirsa J (2016) Komentář k § 89a. In: Jirsa J, Doležal M, Vančurová K et al. Občanské soudní řízení: soudcovský komentář. Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague, pp 68–70

Keyes M, Marshall BA (2015) Jurisdiction agreements: exclusive, optional and asymmetrical. J Priv Int Law 11:345–378CrossRef

Kučera Z (1980) Mezinárodní právo soukromé. Panorama, Prague

Kučera Z, Pauknerová M (2015) Pojem a předmět mezinárodního práva soukromého. In: Kučera Pauknerová, Růžička et al. Mezinárodní právo soukromé. Aleš Čeněk, Pilsen–Brno, pp 23–31

Kučera Z, Pfeiffer M (2015) Závazkové právo. In: Kučera Z, Pauknerová M, Růžička K et al. Mezinárodní právo soukromé. Aleš Čeněk–Doplněk, Pilsen–Brno, pp 283–317

Kučera Z, Tichý L (1989) Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém a procesním: komentář. Panorama, Prague

Magnus U, Mankowski P (2016) European Commentaries on Private International Law: Commentary: Brussels Ibis Regulation. Otto Schmidt: Köln

Novotný Z (2009) § 89a (Prorogace). In: Drápal L, Bureš J et al. Občanský soudní řád I: komentář: § 1 až 200 za. C. H. Beck, Prague, pp 580–582

Pauknerová M, Pfeiffer M (2013) § 1 Předmět úpravy. In: Pauknerová, Rozehnalová, Zavadilová et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague, pp 1–15

Přidal O (2013) § 89a (Prorogace). In: Svoboda K, Smolík P, Levý J et al. Občanský soudní řád: komentář. C. H. Beck, Prague, pp 315–316

Rozehnalová N (1997) Smlouva o příslušnosti soudu z pohledu Úmluvy o soudní pravomoci a příslušnosti a výkonu rozhodnutí v občanských a obchodních věcech z roku 1968. In: Ročenka evropského práva. Masarykova univerzita, Brno, pp 85–107

Rozehnalová N (2013a) § 85 Pravomoc. In: Pauknerová M, Rozehnalová N, Zavadilová M et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague, pp 566–580

Rozehnalová N (2013b) § 86 Sjednání příslušnosti zahraničního soudu. In: Pauknerová M, Rozehnalová N, Zavadilová M et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague, pp 580–594

Rozehnalová N (2013c) § 88 Pravomoc. In: Pauknerová M, Rozehnalová N, Zavadilová M et al. Zákon o mezinárodním právu soukromém: komentář. Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague, pp 609–615

Rozehnalová N (2013d) Rozhodčí řízení v mezinárodním a vnitrostátním obchodním styku. Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague

Rozehnalová N (2016) Instituty českého mezinárodního práva soukromého. Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague

Růžička K (2003) Rozhodčí řízení před Rozhodčím soudem při Hospodářské komoře České republiky a Agrární komoře České republiky. Aleš Čeněk, Pilsen

Sedláček V (1982) Rozhodčí řízení v československém zahraničním obchodě. ČSOPK, Prague

Sedláček V, Steiner V (1975) Mezinárodní obchodní arbitráž (se zřetelem k právní úpravě v ČSSR). ČSOPK, Prague

Act No. 142/1950 Coll., the Civil Procedure Code, as subsequently amended

Act No. 97/1963 Coll., on Private International Law and Rules of International Procedure, as subsequently amended

Act No. 99/1963, the Civil Procedure Code, as subsequently amended

Act No. 519/1991 Coll., amending the Civil Procedure Code

Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code, as subsequently amended

Act No. 91/2012 Coll., on Private International Law, as subsequently amended

Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 19 October 2005

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal, 28 May 1999)

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw, 12 October 1929)

Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters

Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (Hague, 30 June 2005)

Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Lugano II Convention)

Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) (Geneva, 19 May 1956)

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)

Convention on the Settlement by Arbitration of Civil Disputes Arising out of Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation Relationships (Moscow, 26 May 1972)

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

The Explanatory Report to the Act No. 91/2012 Coll., on Private International Law

Treaty between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and Mongolia on the Provision of Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (Ulan Bator, 15 October 1976)

Title: Czech Republic: The Treatment of Optional and Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements
Authors: Naděžda Rozehnalová
Silvie Mahdalová
Lucie Zavadilová
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23913-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-23914-5

Copyright Year: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"