Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2025-08-13; I Ip 803/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2025:I.IP.803.2025
Date: 2025-08-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI0813(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
For the determination of international jurisdiction in respect of persons domiciled in the European Union, the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) applies directly and therefore fully supersedes the domestic legislation of the Member States. The fundamental principles of the Regulation are the principle of uniform and consistent interpretation, the principle of strict interpretation of exceptions to the general rule, and the principle of minimising the risk of conflicting decisions. In accordance with the principle of primacy, national courts must give full effect to the autonomous interpretation of European Union law; therefore, they must exclude the application of conflicting national interpretations. If this is not possible, they must, in accordance with the principle of consistent interpretation, interpret the national legal order as far as possible in conformity with the meaning and objectives of European Union law.
Under the Brussels I Regulation (recast), domicile is the fundamental connecting factor for determining jurisdiction. This is a general rule, and the exceptions to it, including the exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), must be interpreted strictly in accordance with the general principle of the Regulation. Strict interpretation means that jurisdiction should, in principle, follow the defendant’s domicile. If a court departs from this principle, it encroaches upon the sovereignty of other Member States of the European Union, which includes judicial jurisdiction over their residents.
Exclusive international jurisdiction in enforcement matters refers to a court that has a real connecting link between the measure sought and its jurisdiction. The courts of the Member State where the assets are located are best placed to assess the circumstances on which the granting of the measure depends. The court must be able to ensure the effectiveness of the protective measure; in other words, the measure must be enforceable. In the light of Case C-391/95 (Van Uden) (2), national courts must examine whether such a real connecting link exists.
The question of the jurisdiction of the Slovenian court depends on whether the funds and objects of enforcement are located in Slovenia. A bank account is not itself an asset; rather, it is an electronic reference point, an identifier by means of which the bank records the amount of funds held by the debtor with that bank. In that sense, an account is analogous to a physical address for the purpose of attachment. By contrast, the funds in the account, which are in fact a claim against the bank, are analogous to the actual existence of physical movable property (assets). A negative account balance is even less capable of constituting an asset; on the contrary, it is a debt owed to the bank. Even the mere maintenance of an account generates costs, which likewise constitute a debt to the bank. In the present case, enforcement was not carried out, and the court was in fact unable to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed measure. Therefore, the Višje sodišče (Court of Appeal) held that there was no real connecting link between the measure sought and the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts, meaning that the courts of the Republic of Slovenia lacked international jurisdiction in the case.
(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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 November 1998, Van Uden, C-391/95, ECLI:EU:C:1998:543.