Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2019-12-11; I Cp 1745/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2019:I.CP.1745.2019
Date: 2019-12-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Slovenia

82019SI1211(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in a consumer dispute.
A natural person domiciled in Slovenia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against a Swiss banking institution (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) before the Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) concerning a contractual relationship arising from the opening of a bank account.
The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts, relying on Article 2 of the new Lugano Convention (1), according to which a Swiss-domiciled person should be sued in Switzerland. It also invoked the jurisdiction clause contained in the documents relating to the opening of the bank account, designating the courts in Zurich. The Court of First Instance rejected the objection, holding that the plaintiff acted as a consumer and that the special jurisdictional rules on consumer contracts under Article 16 of the new Lugano Convention applied. The defendant appealed.
The Court recalled that, for Section 4 of the new Lugano Convention (Jurisdiction over consumer contracts) to apply, Article 15(1) requires that the consumer acts for a purpose outside his trade or profession and that the trader pursues its commercial or professional activities in the State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that State, with the contract falling within the scope of those activities.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the plaintiff’s status as a consumer, since the opening and operation of a bank account did not fall within his trade or profession. It further held that the Court of First Instance correctly identified several indices demonstrating that the defendant directed its activities towards Slovenia: the defendant had a representative in Slovenia; its branches could perform certain financial services there; the parties communicated primarily in English rather than in the official language of the defendant’s seat; the defendant’s website was available in English, operated under a ‘.com’ domain, listed international telephone codes and provided information accessible to consumers in Slovenia; and the banking services offered (including the account at issue) fell within the scope of these activities. Under the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, such indices were sufficient to establish that the defendant directed its commercial activity to consumers domiciled in Slovenia.
Since the requirements under Article 15(1) of the new Lugano Convention were met, the jurisdiction clause designating the Zurich courts was invalid under Article 17 of that Convention. The plaintiff was therefore entitled to sue the defendant in Slovenia in accordance with Article 16 of the new Lugano Convention.
The Court of Appeal accordingly dismissed the appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.