Višje sodišče v Mariboru; 2019-04-25; I Cpg 103/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSMB:2019:I.CPG.103.2019
Date: 2019-04-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82019SI0425(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The present case concerns a question of international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts, which was resolved by the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
The claims in this dispute had arisen from a contractual relationship between a company domiciled in Slovenia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and an Austrian branch (having no distinct legal personality) of a parent company domiciled in Slovenia too (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The plaintiff applied before the Okrožno sodišče v Murski Soboti (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), which refused to apply the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) stating that both actionable parties were domiciled in Slovenia since the Austrian branch of the defendant had no legal personality. The Court of First Instance denied the existence of a foreign element in the dispute and declared that it itself had jurisdiction.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal alleging an erroneous non-application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The contract was exclusively related to Austria – e.g. the place of delivery was in Austria, final customers were in Austria, documentation was in German language, all taxes were paid in Austria too. Moreover, the contract contained a clause conferring jurisdiction over the disputes arising from it to the Austrian courts. The defendant relied mainly on Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), which, for matters relating to a contract, provides jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. That was indisputably in Austria. Alternatively, the defendant asked the Court of Appeal to refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union to provide an interpretation of the Regulation in question in disputes such as the present one.
The Court of Appeal did not share the opinion of the Court of First Instance that the foreign element was non-essential. Conversely, Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) points directly to the jurisdiction of the Austrian courts as to the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. The other facts recalled by the defendant also support this conclusion. Therefore, the Brussels I Regulation must be applied in this case.
The contract clearly provides an option for both contractual parties (plaintiff and the defendant's branch) to bring the disputes in the courts for the place where either of the parties was situated. The contract shows that the defendant’s branch was situated in Austria. Thus, the contract contained a valid agreement conferring an exclusive jurisdiction to the Austrian courts, even if this agreement covered only disputes between the plaintiff and defendant’s branch. Having said that, there was no further need to assess other provisions of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), since the existence of an agreement conferring jurisdiction fulfilled the conditions laid down by Article 25 of the Regulation and the jurisdiction of Austrian courts is thereby proven.
The Court of Appeal granted the appeal and changed the first instance decision in such a way that the Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction over this dispute.
(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.