Vrhovno sodišče; 2025-10-07; Cpg 15/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2025:CPG.15.2025
Date: 2025-10-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI1007(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Vrhovno sodišče (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerned an application for refusal of recognition and, in the alternative, refusal of enforcement of a Hungarian judgment.
Relying on Article 45(1)(a) and (b) and Article 46 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), the plaintiff sought refusal in Slovenia of the recognition and enforcement of a judgment delivered by a Hungarian second-instance court in Győr. He argued, first, that the Hungarian court had altered the first-instance judgment to his detriment without holding an appeal hearing and, secondly, that the judgment had not been served on him in Slovenian, but only in Hungarian. The Court of First Instance dismissed the application.
The Supreme Court held that the public-policy ground in Article 45(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) must be interpreted strictly, since it constitutes an obstacle to the free circulation of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it stated that the public-policy clause may be relied on only where recognition of the judgment would amount to a manifest infringement of a rule regarded as essential in the legal order of the Member State addressed or of a right recognised there as fundamental. The mere fact that the Hungarian court amended the first-instance judgment without holding an oral hearing did not meet that threshold. Under the ZPP (2), a court of appeal may, in certain circumstances, decide an appeal without a hearing. The plaintiff had not identified any specific disputed issues that would have required an oral hearing on appeal.
As regards Article 45(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the Supreme Court emphasised that this provision protects a defendant who did not enter an appearance because the document instituting the proceedings, or an equivalent document, had not been served in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence. That was not the situation in the present case. The plaintiff had entered an appearance in the Hungarian proceedings and had been represented there until after the appellate judgment had been delivered. His complaint that the Hungarian judgment had not been served on him in Slovenian, therefore did not fall within Article 45(1)(b). Moreover, once the judgment had been accompanied by the certificate required under the Brussels I Regulation (recast), it was enforceable in Slovenia; any challenge to its enforceability in the State of origin had to be brought before the Hungarian courts.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the order rejecting the application for refusal of recognition and enforcement.
(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).
(2) Zakon o pravdnem postopku (Civil Procedure Act).