Injunctions Directive, Article 2

CZ:US:2020:1.US.2619.20.1

An infringement regarding the protection of consumer rights and the termination an unfair practice in matters of protection of rights violated or endangered by unfair competition (§ 2989 para. 1 CC) may seem to overlap; it is necessary to solve the question on determination of substantive jurisdiction that the district or regional courts may have. The court must distinguish whether the entrepreneur directly harms the economic interests of consumers, without any link to other competitors.

In the present case, the consumer protection organisation has objected against the practices of an insurance undertaking which have directly harmed the economic interests of consumers, without reference to other competitors. In fact, it based its claim on the insurance undertaking's unlawful conduct vis-à-vis consumers within the framework of a contractual relationship arising from concluded insurance contracts, and not on an infringement of the competition rules. The insurance company did not agree with this and filed a constitutional complaint. The Court of Appeal concluded that an infringement regarding the protection of consumer rights and the termination an unfair practice in matters of protection of rights violated or endangered by unfair competition (§ 2989 para. 1 CC) may seem to overlap.

What is decisive, however, is the way in which the applicant has described the subject-matter of the proceedings in connection with the factual petition put forward. In the present case, the intervener distinguishes itself from the complainant's (insurance company's) practices which directly harm the economic interests of consumers, without any link to other competitors.

Which court (regional or district) has the jurisdiction in cases when matters of protection of consumer rights and matters of protection of rights violated or endangered by unfair competition overlap?

In the present case, the Constitutional Court did not find any grounds for interfering in the jurisdiction of the ordinary (regional) courts. The Court of Appeal gave reasons for the contested order in a comprehensible and adequate manner; the Constitutional Court did not find any shortcomings that led it to issue an annulling ruling.

URL: https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/ResultDetail.aspx?id=113628&pos=1&cnt=1&typ=result

Úplné znění: Úplné znění

Výsledky nejsou k dispozici.

Výsledky nejsou k dispozici.

The constitutional complaint was rejected. Whether or not the law calls on the district or regional court to decide the case in the first instance, the party to the proceedings retains access to the first and appellate instance. Any inaccuracy in the determination of the court with substantive jurisdiction by a decision can be successfully filed in a constitutional complaint against the final decision if the incorrect determination of substantive jurisdiction could lead to a restriction of procedural rights of the complaining party. From the point of view of the efficient functioning of the judiciary, it would be unsustainable for the Constitutional Court to find a violation of this constitutional principle in every case of an incorrectly chosen court. The Court of Appeal explained the considerations followed in formulating the legal conclusion on the substantive jurisdiction of the district courts; the Constitutional Court, therefore, finds the scope of the reasoning of the contested resolution to be appropriate and does not consider the procedure of the Court of Appeal to be arbitrary.