This power (international jurisdiction), the Czech courts can not waive, and therefore the Supreme

Search: recodification newsletter le club archive articles of the Law of judicial decisions PRACTICAL ADVICE eFOCUS Civil Law Commercial Law Insolvency le club Law Financial Law Administrative Law Labour Law Criminal Law European Law Public Procurement other legal fields
Lenders are various reasons happens that receive EEO against foreigners, who does not reside in the territory of the Czech Republic, however, there may potentially have assets. As for the Czech lender based execution had mostly cheaper than abroad, they have a natural tendency to initiate enforcement proceedings, first at home, of course, in a situation where there is at least some hope that the foreign debtor is in the Czech Republic exekvovatelný property. However, as in these cases, Divide vicious circle when local jurisdiction is determined by the location of the stranger's le club property, whose existence is but the beginning of the execution proceedings often unknown? And they all Czech courts jurisdiction in such cases?
According to 45 para. 2 ER is locally relevant execution court is the district in which the debtor is a natural person, place of residence or place of residence in the Czech Republic by type of residence foreigners. If a legal person, le club is the court of the district in which the debtor is located. If no mandatory, who is a natural person, the Czech Republic, place of residence or place of residence, or if no mandatory, which is a legal entity based in the Czech Republic, is the court of the district in which the debtor has assets.
The problem with identifying locally le club competent court of execution occurs le club most often in foreign natural persons in the Czech Republic have their place of residence or other residence. It may be eg. The people who did business in the Czech Republic, but its business end and returned to their home countries. Or by persons in the Czech Republic from time to time deal, but in the Czech Republic are staying only a short time eg. In the hotel, ie. Not in the Czech Republic is no authorized stay. As a result of its business activities, whether past or current, however, these foreigners can have the CR property, eg. In the form of receivables from Czech entities.
However, the fact that really is mandatory in the Czech Republic executory Estate punishable under whose placement could be determined by the local jurisdiction executory court comes to light activities authorized by the court bailiff in the implementation of the execution. le club In other words, we get into a vicious circle, where facts relevant to determining the territorial jurisdiction of the court of execution is often possible to find out only when things begin to take place in the executor authorized execution court. However, the executor may be to perform a particular le club execution commissioned, you must first identify locally relevant execution court, which in turn brings us to the beginning of the problem.
The power (and therefore the obligation) to Czech courts to decide and take action in matters of enforcement, respectively. execution and in the case "nepobytových" foreigners follows from Article. 22 paragraph 5 of the Brussels I Regulation, according to which, regardless of domicile shall have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the enforcement le club of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment "was or should be performed ".
This power (international jurisdiction), the Czech courts can not waive, and therefore the Supreme Court has in its decision file. Ref. 25 Nd 55/2006 of 31. 8. 2006 (R 43/2007) concluded that the Czech court jurisdiction le club in such cases takes according to the cited provisions of the Brussels I Regulation up until eventually it is found that in the Czech Republic no property is not punishable. He argued that the expression "to be executed" means the place of effective enforcement by way of its implementation; be enforced where the light of the particular circumstances to achieve the real purpose of the exercise (ie. the required services can actually enforce), ie where the debtor is punishable property, from which can be satisfied the claim of the creditor. Within the meaning of Article. 22 paragraph 5 of the Brussels I Regulation is according to R 43/2007 crucial subject of the proceedings, not the nature of its participants, and the issue of territorial jurisdiction to assess the competence of the courts of the Czech Republic is not decisive because the enforcement proceedings implies the power directly from Regulation Brussels I.
The question of competence is still not resolved the issue of territorial jurisdiction in situations where it is not known whether mandatory without residence or domicile in the territory of the Czech Republic has at least a punishable property. These situations solves somewhat "forgotten" in 11 par. 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, according to which if it is a thing that belongs to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Czech Republic, le club but the conditions of the local jurisdiction le club is missing or can not be ascertained, the Supreme Court determines that the court hear the case and decide. Thus, even when there is no determinable what the execution court has territorial jurisdiction, the Supreme Court resolves.
As a result of somewhat inconsistent practice of the Supreme Court on the question whether the execution court or not, when assessing its area of jurisdiction to search for the existence of the debtor's assets, the substantive problems eventually came before