Višje sodišče v Mariboru; 2017-10-12; I Cpg 197/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSMB:2017:I.CPG.197.2017
Date: 2017-10-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82017SI1012(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An insurance company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) instituted proceedings for recourse against a company that failed to ensure the operation of a power plant on Drava river, (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) when a flood happened in November 2012 on the river. The plaintiff was obliged to pay compensation to the victims, the reimbursement of which was sought by the current proceedings.
The Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) stated that similar proceedings with the same cause of action was already started before the Austrian court in Klagenfurt. The Court of First Instance cited Article 30 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘where related actions are pending in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised may stay its proceedings’ and stayed the proceedings until the final judgment would be given in Austria. The Court of First Instance supported its decision by reference to Case C-406/92 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (2) which allegedly dealt with a similar situation.
Both parties appealed the first instance decision expressing intentions to continue in the current proceedings as the proceedings held in Austria was brought by the current defendant against the Republic of Slovenia, which is a different party from the one in these Slovenian proceedings. Furthermore, the parties to the dispute before the Austrian court agreed to stay the Austrian proceedings until a related criminal investigation was concluded. The termination of the proceedings in the current case would therefore deprive them from their constitutional right to a fair trial and the right to a judgment given within a reasonable time.
The Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) asserted that the first instance decision was manifestly contrary to the interest of the parties since both expressed intentions to continue the proceedings. The reference to the Case C-406/92 was erroneous, as the conditions of both cases were different. The Court of Appeal confirmed the pleas of both parties that the proceedings held in Slovenia and in Austria are not ‘so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings’ as required by Article 30(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), so the application of Article 30 to stay the current proceedings was also wrong. The Court of Appeal further cited the principle res iudicata ius facit inter partes (the case legally closed is valid between the parties). As the parties in the Austrian and Slovenian proceedings differ, the final judgment in Austria would not have any effect on the Slovenian proceedings.
Therefore, the appeals were granted, and the first instance decision was annulled. The case was referred back to the Court of First Instance, which must decide on the merits.
(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.
(2) Judgment of the Court of 6 December 1994, The owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship "Tatry" v the owners of the ship "Maciej Rataj", C-406/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:400.