Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2019-03-26; I Cpg 103/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2019:I.CPG.103.2019
Date: 2019-03-26
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82019SI0326(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns a question of international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in a dispute relating to an immovable property resolved by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
The parties to this dispute, both domiciled in Slovenia, entered into a contract for the provision of accommodation services, which related to the lease of a property situated in Croatia. Following a breach of the contractual obligations, the plaintiff brought the case before the Slovenian courts. In reply to the action, the defendant objected against the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts pointing to an agreement conferring jurisdiction in favour of the court in Zagreb and invoking the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1).
The Okrožno sodišče v Krškem (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) did not take the objections of the defendant into consideration, however, from its own motion the declared lack of jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts. The Court of First Instance referred to Article 24(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which ‘in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property [an exclusive jurisdiction shall have] the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated’. Thus, the jurisdiction lies with the courts of Croatia.
The plaintiff appealed, alleging an erroneous application of substantial and procedural law.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the correct application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Pursuant to Article 27 of this Regulation, where courts of other Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction, then the court seised ‘shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction’. The contract between the parties falls undoubtedly within the meaning of cited Article 24. As it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) covers all disputes concerning the mutual obligations of the tenant and the lessor. It was clear and undisputed that the current case is exactly such. One of the fundamental features of the exclusive jurisdiction is that it supersedes all other general jurisdictional rules. The jurisdiction of other courts which might otherwise have jurisdiction under other provisions of the same regulation is therefore excluded (it covers also agreements conferring jurisdiction).
The Court of Appeal found no grounds to grant the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the first instance decision was upheld.
(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.