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.
The authors have published a short summary of this paper under the title “Czech National Report on Optional Choice of Court Agreements” in The Lawyer Quarterly (2018), pp. 332–347.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
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”.
- 2.
Section 623 of the Act No. 142/1950 Coll., the Civil Procedure Code, as subsequently amended.
- 3.
Kučera (1980), pp. 371–374.
- 4.
- 5.
Růžička (2003), pp. 11–55.
- 6.
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.
- 7.
I.e. after the so-called Velvet Revolution when not only political changes but also significant changes of legal order occurred.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
Act No. 91/2012 Coll., on Private International Law, as subsequently amended (hereinafter referred to as the Private International Law Act).
- 12.
Jirsa (2016), p. 69.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
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).
- 18.
Section 125 of the Private International Law Act.
- 19.
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).
- 20.
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.”
- 21.
- 22.
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).
- 23.
- 24.
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.”
-
(a)
- 25.
Bříza (2012), p. 180.
- 26.
- 27.
Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 585.
- 28.
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.”
- 29.
- 30.
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).
- 31.
Rozehnalová (2013b), pp. 585–586.
- 32.
Kučera and Tichý (1989), pp. 215–227.
- 33.
Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 570.
- 34.
Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), p. 504.
- 35.
Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 587.
- 36.
- 37.
Keyes and Marshall (2015), p. 350.
- 38.
Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (hereinafter referred to as Brussels Convention).
- 39.
Bříza and Břicháček (2014a), pp. 498, 500, 504.
- 40.
On this debate see: Magnus and Mankowski (2016), pp. 1014–1016.
- 41.
See also the solution given by European Court of Justice in Sanicentral GmbH v René Collin (Case 25/79 of 13 November 1979).
- 42.
- 43.
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal, 28 May 1999), exhaustively listed fora in article 33.
- 44.
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules to International Carriage by Air (Warsaw, 12 October 1929), article 28.
- 45.
Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) (Geneva, 19 May 1956), article 31.1.
- 46.
- 47.
Kučera and Tichý (1989), p. 224.
- 48.
- 49.
Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 568.
- 50.
- 51.
Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 586.
- 52.
Bříza and Břicháček (2014b), pp. 513–514.
- 53.
- 54.
Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 587.
- 55.
Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 586.
- 56.
- 57.
Bříza (2012), pp. 168–169, 171.
- 58.
- 59.
Act No. 99/1963, the Civil Procedure Code, as subsequently amended (hereinafter referred to as Civil Procedure Code).
- 60.
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.”
- 61.
Jirsa (2016), pp. 68–69.
- 62.
- 63.
- 64.
Jirsa (2016), pp. 69–70.
- 65.
Javůrková (2009), pp. 414–415.
- 66.
Judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague of 11 July 2005, No. 16 Co 144/2005. See: Jirsa (2016), p. 69.
- 67.
Jirsa (2016), p. 68.
- 68.
- 69.
Rozehnalová (2013a), p. 570.
- 70.
Kučera and Tichý (1989), p. 225.
- 71.
Rozehnalová (2013b), p. 587.
- 72.
- 73.
Bříza (2014), p. 517.
- 74.
- 75.
Keyes and Marshall (2015), pp. 353–355.
- 76.
- 77.
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.
- 78.
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.
- 79.
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.
- 80.
Ahmed (2017), pp. 403–425.
References
Ahmed M (2017) The legal regulation and enforcement of asymmetric jurisdiction agreements in the European Union. Eur Bus Law Rev 28:403–425
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 11:345–378
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
Legal Documents
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
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)
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)
Case Law
Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 13 November 1979, case No. 25/79
Judgment of the Supreme Court of 29 August 2002, No. 29 Odo 524/2002
Judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague of 11 July 2005, No. 16 Co 144/2005
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rozehnalová, N., Mahdalová, S., Zavadilová, L. (2020). Czech Republic: The Treatment of Optional and Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements. In: Keyes, M. (eds) Optional Choice of Court Agreements in Private International Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 37. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23914-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23913-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23914-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)