Summary
In this case, the employer sued its employee for payment in Poland. The court stated that the defendant entered an appearance so Polish courts shall have jurisdiction under Art. 24 of the Brussels I Regulation. The court pointed out that the defendant contested the jurisdiction after one year of proceedings. However, the defendant disagreed with this argument and stated that according to Art. 20 par. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation an employer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the Member State in which the employee is domiciled. The defendant stated that the only possible exception to the rule provided by Art. 20 par. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation is the conclusion of agreement conferring jurisdiction as per Art. 23 of the Brussels I Regulation. The Polish Supreme Court confirmed the second-instance judgement. It cited the judgement of the CJEU (C-111/09) according to which Article 24 of Brussels I Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the court seised, where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II of that regulation were not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction.