Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2025-01-16; I Cpg 184/2024
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2025:I.CPG.184.2024
Date: 2025-01-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI0116(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 dispute arising from an international sales contract.
The dispute arose out of a sales contract which the plaintiff, a Slovenian company acting as the buyer, concluded with a seller of instant oat flakes established in Poland (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). Due to the international element in the case, the Court of First Instance relied on the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and declared that it lacked jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings. In the absence of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the Slovenian courts under Article 25 of the Regulation, the Court invoked Article 7(1), according to which jurisdiction lies with the courts of the place of performance of the obligation. The Court of First Instance established that the place of performance was in Poland because the plaintiff had expressly stated that it organised the transport of the goods from Poland to Slovenia itself, meaning the goods were at its disposal already in Poland.
The plaintiff appealed. It argued, first, that its right to be heard had been infringed because the defendant’s reply was not forwarded to it before the decision. Secondly, it claimed that jurisdiction should have been established under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), as the defect in the goods was allegedly discovered only in Slovenia, making Slovenia the place where the damage occurred.
The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments. It held that the service of documents is governed by Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 (2) and noted that any deficiency in the service of the defendant’s reply did not affect the jurisdictional assessment. Jurisdiction must be examined ex officio and is based on the plaintiff’s own factual assertions in the claim. Since the plaintiff itself provided the decisive facts regarding the place of performance, the omission did not infringe its procedural rights in a way that could influence the outcome.
As to jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the place of performance within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was K. in Poland, from where the plaintiff’s carrier took possession of the goods. It rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on Article 7(2), emphasising that the claim—seeking the return of the purchase price and reimbursement of storage costs—arose from the sales contract. Referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Appeal stressed that the notion of a ‘contractual matter’ is interpreted broadly and includes claims concerning the quality of goods and damages for breach of contract. Since the action was contractual in nature, the applicable rule was Article 7(1), not Article 7(2).
Because the place of performance was in Poland, jurisdiction lay with the Polish courts. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(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).
(2) Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) (recast).