Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije; 2024-04-09; Cpg 4/2024
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2024:CPG.4.2024
Date: 2024-04-09
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82024SI0409(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Vrhovno sodišče (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerned the refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment, and particularly the procedural requirements governing such proceedings under Slovenian law.
The applicant appealed a decision of the Court of First Instance rejecting his proposal to refuse recognition and enforcement of a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in Győr, Hungary. He relied on the grounds for refusal set out in Article 45(1)(a) and (b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), alleging that the Hungarian appellate judgment had not been properly served on him in a language he understood and that he became acquainted with its content only after receiving a Slovenian translation in the Slovenian enforcement proceedings. He further argued that enforcement based on such a judgment would be manifestly contrary to Slovenian public policy.
The Supreme Court, which under Article a42.b(7) of the ZIZ (2) acts as the appellate court in proceedings concerning refusal of recognition or enforcement, emphasised that it must examine not only the grounds raised by the appellant but also, ex officio, any absolute fundamental violations of procedural law.
Referring to Article 339(2)(1) of the ZPP (3), the Supreme Court recalled that a fundamental procedural violation is always deemed to exist where the court is improperly constituted. Such a violation also occurs when a single judge renders a decision, although the law requires a panel decision. Pursuant to Article a42.b(5) of the ZIZ, introduced by the ZIZ-L amendment and applicable to proceedings under the Brussels I Regulation (recast), a proposal to refuse recognition or enforcement must be decided by a panel of three judges. In the present case, however, the contested decision had been issued by a single judge.
The Supreme Court held that this constituted an improper composition of the court and, consequently, an absolute fundamental violation of civil procedural law. Without examining the other grounds of appeal, it therefore upheld the appeal, annulled the decision of the Court of First Instance and remitted the case for fresh proceedings. It instructed the Court of First Instance to comply with the procedural requirements of Article a42.b of the ZIZ, including the obligation to serve a complete and admissible proposal for refusal of recognition or enforcement on the opposing party and to decide the matter in the proper judicial composition.
(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 izvršbi in zavarovanju (Enforcement and Security Act).
(3) Zakon o pravdnem postopku (Civil Procedure Act).