Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2017-08-02; II Cp 850/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2017:II.CP.850.2017
Date: 2017-08-02
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82017SI0802(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Multiple Slovenian natural persons (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) claimed financial compensation for a mental suffering caused by the death of their mother, who they believed was incorrectly treated by a clinic established in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) declared the lack of its jurisdiction and dismissed the action.
The plaintiffs appealed before the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) objecting due to an alleged erroneous application of the Brussels I Regulation (1). They alleged that Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation which allows proceedings to be brought 'in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur' together with Article 16(1) of the Regulation which entitles a customer to file an action 'in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled’ justify the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts, since their mother died and they suffered the mental pain in Slovenia, where they are also domiciled.
The Court of Appeal held that there was no contract concluded directly between the plaintiffs and the defendant, so the grounds of any appeal invoking Article 16(1) was unfounded.
As regarding Article 5(3), the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision that only the place of origin of the direct damage, which lies at the headquarters of the defendant in Germany, is relevant. This opinion was supported by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-220/88 (2), according to which Article 5(3) ‘cannot be interpreted as permitting a plaintiff pleading damage which he claims to be the consequence of the harm suffered by other persons who were direct victims of the harmful act to bring proceedings against the perpetrator of that act in the courts of the place in which he himself ascertained the damage to his assets’.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 January 1990, Dumez France SA and Tracoba SARL v Hessische Landesbank and others, C-220/88, ECLI:EU:C:1990:8.