Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije; 2020-08-11; Cpg 8/2020
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2020:CPG.8.2020
Date: 2020-08-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82020SI0811(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment resolved by the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
By the judgment of the Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien (hereinafter ‘Austrian court’), a company established in Slovenia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), posting workers to Austria in respect of construction works, was obliged to pay EUR 9 975,80 in favour of the Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- u. Abfertigungskasse (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’). The plaintiff is a body governed by Austrian public law responsible for the management and payment of claims for the paid annual leave of workers in the construction sector.
The plaintiff applied before the Okrajno sodišče v Žalcu (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to recognise and enforce the Austrian judgment. The defendant requested the application to be refused, but its request was dismissed, and the plaintiff’s application was granted.
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overrule the first instance order. The defendant invoked Article 45(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘the recognition of a judgment shall be refused, if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State addressed’. The defendant also suggested that the present case is not at all a civil or commercial matter to which the Brussels I Regulation (recast) provisions would apply since the respondent is a public-law body. The defendant also alleged that the claims have already been settled in Slovenia. Therefore, the present claim constitutes a double payment of an obligation contrary to the Agreement between the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Austria for the Avoidance of Double Taxation (hereinafter ‘the Agreement’).
The Supreme Court confirmed the conclusions of the Court of First Instance based on Case C-579/17 (2) of the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU), which concerned the same parties. The CJEU has clarified that the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ is to be interpreted autonomously. The fact that the plaintiff has the status of a collective body governed by public law is not decisive. What is decisive is the basis of the relationship from which the claim arises. The claim in question is linked to the workers’ civil-law right to payment of wage supplements.  The nature of the plaintiff’s claim is therefore civil law too. The Supreme Court, citing the CJEU, also explained that the current claim could not be understood as a benefit in the sense of social security, which would also be excluded from the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The decisions of the CJEU are binding on the national courts.
Regarding the grounds of appeal relying on public policy, the mere fact that the Slovenian legal order does not provide the same type of wage supplements does not mean that the payment of the claim under the Austrian judgment is contrary to Slovenian public policy. Public policy includes only those mandatory legal norms and moral rules the breach of which would undermine the integrity of the Slovenian legal order. The payment of the benefits of workers cannot be understood as such a breach.
The grounds of appeal based on the alleged double payment was refused too, since the Agreement applies to taxes on income, and it is inapplicable to the current case.
The grounds for refusing to enforce a foreign judgment provided for in Article 45 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) do not apply in the present case. The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal and upheld the order 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.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 February 2019, BUAK Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- u. Abfertigungskasse v Gradbeništvo Korana d.o.o., C-579/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:162.