Апелативен съд София; 2022-06-14; 20221000501672
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:BG:AP100:2022:20220501672.001
Date: 2022-06-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Bulgaria

82022BG0614(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This judgment of the Apelativen sad Sofiya (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) concerns a question of the continuation of the proceedings where the same cause of action has already been decided by a court of another Member State.
A person domiciled in Bulgaria (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought proceedings before the Sofiyski gradski sad (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against another person domiciled in Bulgaria (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The plaintiff sought payment of a substantial sum of money for alleged unjust enrichment. The Court of First Instance dismissed the action on the basis of Article 29(1) and (3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). Before the action was brought before the Court of First Instance, proceedings involving the same cause of action between the same parties were brought before the court in Halkidiki, Greece.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the first instance, claiming that it infringed procedural law and  European Union law in that it was not clear from the contested decision how the jurisdiction of the Greek court had been established. The plaintiff contended that the Brussels I Regulation (recast) did not apply to the present case because, first, the Regulation did not cover the issue of unjust enrichment and, second, the case concerned two persons domiciled in the same Member State, Bulgaria, which precluded the application of the Regulation.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the question of jurisdiction is governed by the Brussels I Regulation (recast). In the meantime, the proceedings before the Greek court had been finally concluded, and the plaintiff's action in Greece had been dismissed in its entirety. The plaintiff had been notified of the Greek judgment and had not appealed against it within the period provided for by Greek procedural law. It must therefore be concluded that the plaintiff had expressed his agreement with the Greek judgment and its reasoning. The Court of Appeal cited Recitals 21 and 22 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and the principle of minimising the possibility of concurrent proceedings and ensuring that irreconcilable judgments are not given in different Member States. Priority is always given to the court first seised, which in this case was the Greek court. The Greek judgment expressly provides that it has jurisdiction to hear the case at the time when the document instituting the proceedings was lodged with that court pursuant to Article 32 of the Brussels I Regulation. Article 31 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) provides that ‘where actions come within the exclusive jurisdiction of several courts, any court other than the court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court’.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the conclusion of the Court of First Instance, which had declined jurisdiction in favour of the Greek court.
(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).