Višje sodišče v Celju; 2025-04-02; III Cpg 27/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSCE:2025:III.CPG.27.2025
Date: 2025-04-02
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI0402(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Višje sodišče v Celju (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned international jurisdiction over a claim for repayment of the purchase price and related costs after a truck delivered to Slovenia was found to have a legal defect.
A company established in Slovenia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) bought a truck from a company established in Belgium (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) through an online auction. After the vehicle was delivered to Slovenia, a technical inspection revealed it had been stolen. The vehicle was seized and returned to its lawful owner. The plaintiff then brought proceedings before the Okrožno sodišče v Celju (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking repayment of the purchase price, related costs and interest.
The Court of First Instance held that the Slovenian courts lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the action. Referring to Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), it considered that the case concerned improper performance, not non-performance. Since the plaintiff was not seeking delivery of the goods, but repayment following termination of the contract, the place where the truck had been delivered could not establish jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ in Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) must be interpreted autonomously. The Regulation does not distinguish between non-performance and improper performance, and the fact that the goods were delivered with a legal defect, that the contract was terminated and that the vehicle was later seized did not remove the dispute from the contractual sphere. Referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Appeal stated that restitution claims closely linked to a contractual obligation, including claims arising after termination of a contract, may also fall within matters relating to a contract. The decisive element was that the defendant had voluntarily assumed the contractual obligation on which the claim was based.
In the case of a sale of goods, Article 7(1)(b), first indent, of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) confers jurisdiction on the courts for the place in a Member State where the goods were delivered, or should have been delivered, under the contract. On the material available at that stage of the proceedings, that place was in Slovenia. Since the truck had been delivered there, the Slovenian courts, and specifically the Court of First Instance, had jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the appeal and annulled the order of the Court of First Instance.
(1) 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).