Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije; 2025-05-13; III Ips 34/2023
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2025:III.IPS.34.2023
Date: 2025-05-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI0513(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Vrhovno sodišče (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerned the international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts over a counter-claim where the parties had agreed on the exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign court.
The parties concluded two contracts granting the plaintiff exclusive rights to sell the defendant’s products in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Both contracts contained a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the court in Milan, Italy. The last written contract expired on 31 December 2012, but business cooperation continued without a written agreement until August 2015.
In earlier proceedings, the defendant (originally the plaintiff) successfully sued before the Okrožno sodišče v Novi Gorici (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for payment for goods supplied. The Slovenian courts accepted jurisdiction in that case because the claim for payment arose from the post-contractual business relationship (2013–2015), which was not governed by the written contract containing the Italian jurisdiction clause.
In the course of those proceedings, the present plaintiff filed a counter-claim seeking damages for lost profit, alleging that the defendant had unjustifiably deprived it of markets. The Court of First Instance declared that it lacked jurisdiction over this counter-claim. This was upheld by the Višje sodišče v Kopru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) and the Supreme Court. The Ustavno sodišče (Constitutional Court) later annulled those decisions on procedural grounds relating to service of documents. However, in the renewed proceedings, the Court of First Instance again declared a lack of jurisdiction. It distinguished the counter-claim from the initial claim, reasoning that the counter-claim for the loss of exclusive rights was inherently based on the original written distribution contracts. Consequently, the jurisdiction clause in favour of the Italian courts applied. The Court of Appeal confirmed this conclusion, emphasising that the claim for positive contractual interest could be based only on a breach of the written contract.
The plaintiff lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, arguing that Article 8(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) allows a counter-claim to be heard by the court seised of the original claim, thereby overriding the jurisdiction agreement. The Supreme Court analysed the relationship between Article 8(3) and Article 25 (prorogation of jurisdiction) and held that a valid jurisdiction agreement under Article 25 creates exclusive jurisdiction unless the parties agree otherwise. Referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Supreme Court explained that the mandatory and exclusive jurisdiction under Article 25 takes precedence over the facultative special jurisdiction of Article 8(3). Therefore, the valid agreement conferring jurisdiction on the court in Milan precluded Slovenian jurisdiction over the contractual counter-claim.
The Supreme Court also rejected the allegation of a violation of the right to be heard, holding that the plaintiff’s arguments on non-contractual liability were irrelevant, as the counter-claim was based on contractual liability.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law.
(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).