Vrhovno sodišče RS; 2016-07-15; Cpg 7/2016
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:CPG.7.2016
Date: 2016-07-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82016SI0715(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The plaintiff sought the recognition and enforcement of a judgment of the Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Zagreb’) in Slovenia. The judgment ordered the defendant to pay a debt, together with default interest calculated in accordance with Croatian law.
The Okrožno sodišče v Kopru (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Koper’) declared the foreign judgment enforceable in Slovenia, invoking the transitional provisions of Article 66(2)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (1). After the defendant’s objection, the court amended its previous decision by admitting that the Brussels I Regulation was not applicable, since, at the time of the start of that proceeding before the Court of First Instance in Zagreb, the parties were not established in Member States of the European Union. The legal basis for recognition was altered to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between Slovenia and Croatia and the foreign judgment was recognised only partially — with restrictions in the part concerning the default interest.
The case was appealed to the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), where the plaintiff appealed mainly the partial recognition, whilst the defendant alleged, firstly, that the Court of First Instance in Koper disregarded an exclusive jurisdiction agreement between the parties, and secondly, that the duration of the proceedings had been unreasonably long and, thirdly, that the foreign judgment lacked clarity.
The Supreme Court assessed the applicability of the Brussels I Regulation. The proceeding in Croatia was initiated in 1990, during the existence of Yugoslavia, where both Croatia and Slovenia were parts of the federation, and when the Brussels I Regulation was not yet in force. But the final judgment was passed in November 2013, when the Regulation applied in successor states Croatia and Slovenia, both being Member States, justifying the application of the Brussels I Regulation under the conditions specified in the transitional provisions of that Regulation.
The Supreme Court subsequently held that the full recognition of the judgment would not be manifestly contrary to public policy in Slovenia under Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation despite different methods of calculating the default interest in both states. The use of public policy clause is justified only in cases of a fundamental breach of a legal system of the state in which the recognition is sought. This was not the case here, moreover, the default interest accrued by Croatian law is considerably lower than the interest the plaintiff would obtain under Slovenian law — therefore the defendant’s objection against the plaintiff’s appeal alleging an excessive amount of interest due to calculation in accordance with Croatian law could not be founded. The existence of the exclusive jurisdiction agreement is not a matter of review in the recognition and enforcement procedure; it had to be challenged in the Croatian proceeding. The unreasonably long duration of the proceeding should be claimed in different courts and by different proceedings and is not ground for creating an objection in the recognition and enforcement procedure. Lastly, the Croatian judgment was held clear enough in all parts.
The Supreme Court held the appeal of the plaintiff founded, whilst the appeal of the defendant was unfounded in all three motions, therefore, the first instance decision was amended and full recognition and enforcement, also in the part related to the default interest, was granted.
(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.