Višje sodišče v Mariboru; 2017-02-07; I Cp 30/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSMB:2017:I.CP.30.2017
Date: 2017-02-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82017SI0207(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between a Slovenian plaintiff and a legal person domiciled in Austria (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) concerning compensation for alleged damages to real estate located in Slovenia caused by the defendant’s inappropriate treatment of water resources during a flooding event in Austria.
Before the Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) the defendant objected, alleging the lack of jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts and sought that the plaintiff’s request be refused, but the objection was dismissed on the basis of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’.
The defendant appealed before the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging that Article 7(2) invoked by the Court of First Instance relates only to direct damage, not to indirect ones as is the merit of the present case.
The Court of Appeal held that the damage to the real estate properties had arisen as a consequence of the irresponsible actions of the defendant and therefore the damage should be considered as directly caused by the defendant. Conversely, the concept of indirect damage would be characterised by an intermediate, independent event between the action of the defendant and the consequence, which was not the case in the present dispute. The Court of Appeal further stated that the Court of Justice of the European Union already provided an interpretation on the conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) several times, for example in Case C-12/15 (2), according to which ‘those words are intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, so that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the applicant, in the courts for either of those places’. As it was undisputed that the damage occurred in the territory of Slovenia, the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts was held justified.
The appeal was refused in its entirety as unfounded, 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.
(2) Judgment of the Cour of Justice of 16 June 2016, Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault Schilling and Others, C-12/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:449, paragraph 28.