Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2025-08-21; I Cpg 311/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2025:I.CPG.311.2025
Date: 2025-08-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI0821(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned tacit prorogation of international jurisdiction and the time limit for raising an objection based on a jurisdiction agreement.
A company established in Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and a company established in Slovenia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) concluded a real-estate brokerage contract containing a jurisdiction clause. The plaintiff later sought payment of EUR 122 500 in brokerage commission and initiated proceedings in Slovenia by applying for enforcement based on an invoice. The defendant challenged the enforcement order but did not, at that stage, expressly contest the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts. After the proceedings continued as ordinary civil proceedings and the plaintiff supplemented its claim, the defendant raised an objection to jurisdiction on the basis of the contractual clause.
The Court of First Instance dismissed that objection as being too late. It held that, under the ZIZ (1), a debtor had to invoke a jurisdiction agreement no later than in the objection to the enforcement order, save where it did not yet know the basis of the claim. It further held that the defendant had tacitly accepted jurisdiction by participating in court-annexed mediation and by failing to respond within the 15-day time limit set by the court for replying to the supplemented claim.
The Court of Appeal annulled that decision. It held that ‘entering an appearance’ within the meaning of Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) is an autonomous concept of European Union law. Although national procedural autonomy governs when a defendant has the first opportunity to contest jurisdiction, that autonomy is limited by the principle of effectiveness. In the circumstances of the Slovenian enforcement procedure, requiring the defendant to raise a jurisdiction agreement already in the objection to the enforcement order was too strict. The defendant had only eight days to file a reasoned objection, even though the enforcement order had been issued without a complete statement of claim and only on the basis of a designated document of probative value.
The Court of Appeal further held that participation in court-annexed mediation after the proceedings had been formally stayed did not constitute an appearance before the court. Nor could the defendant’s failure to respond within a court-imposed 15-day time limit be treated as tacit acceptance of jurisdiction, since that period was not a statutory preclusive time limit and no warning had been given as to such consequence.
The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the appeal, annulled the order of the Court of First Instance and remitted the case for a substantive examination of the jurisdiction clause.
(1) Zakon o izvršbi in zavarovanju (Enforcement and Security Act).
(2) 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).