Županijski sud u Zagrebu; 2015-06-02; A. J., M. J.; H.-T. eGen; Gž-3626/15-2
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:HR:ZSZG:2015:2
Date: 2015-06-02
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Croatia

82015HR0602(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The Županijski sud in Zagreb (hereinafter: County Court in Zagreb) issued a decision in case number Gž-3626/2015-2 of 02 June 2015 in which it rejected the appeal of the first and the second plaintiffs A.J. and M.J., both from Z. as unfounded. With the same decision, the County Court in Zagreb confirmed the decision of the Općinski građanski sud in Zagreb (hereinafter: Municipal Civil Court in Zagreb) in case number P-5050/2013-11 of 01 December 2013.
In its decision, the first instance Municipal Civil Court in Zagreb declined jurisdiction in a civil procedure against the defendant R.H. - T.eGen., from R. of A., a procedure instituted to determine the nullity of a loan agreement, and it abolished all of the actions undertaken and rejected the plaintiff´s appeal. During the procedure, it was found that the first instance Municipal Civil Court in Zagreb declined their jurisdiction and rejected the claim of the plaintiff referring erroneously in the statement of reasons for the contested decision to the provisions of Article 55 of the Zakon o rješavanju sukoba zakona s propisima drugih zemalja u određenim odnosima (Official Gazette 53/91 and others, hereinafter: ZRSZ), because it is not deducible from the content of the file that the defendant has its head office or branch office or representative office in the territory of the Republic of Croatia.
The second instance County Court in Zagreb rejected the appeal of the plaintiff as unfounded, arguing that it has no influence on the final decision in this case, because the first instance court incorrectly applied the said connecting factors of the ZRSZ. The law applicable in determining the jurisdiction of the court in this civil procedure with an international element is the Council Regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Brussels I Regulation”), which, in the Article 76, prescribes that the Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community, of which the Republic of Croatia has been a member from 01 July 2013. The plaintiffs did not submit evidence that the parties had agreed on the jurisdiction of the Croatian Court, as it is prescribed in the Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, which prescribes the exclusive jurisdiction of the court unless the parties have agreed otherwise (jurisdiction determined by the contract). In addition, the defendant submitted to the court the defendant’s General terms and conditions for business relations between customers and credit institutions, version of 2007, which determines the applicable terms and conditions, and which prescribes that Austrian law shall be applicable for all legal relationships between the party and the credit facility, and that appeals against the credit institution may be filed only at the factually competent court in the domicile of the credit institution, i.e. the defendant.
Based on the above, the courts held that the defendant proved that the parties had agreed that the Austrian courts would have the jurisdiction to resolve any disputes which arose from their legal relationship, and that in this case the provisions of Article 23(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation are applicable. For these reasons, the first instance court correctly based its decision on the provisions of Article 16(3) of the Zakon o parničnom postupku (Official Gazette 53/9 and other), that the courts of the Republic of Croatia were not competent to try in this case, despite the fact it referred erroneously to the provisions of Article 55 ZRSZ instead of Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation.