Vrhovno sodišče; 2021-05-18; III Ips 11/2021
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2021:III.IPS.11.2021
Date: 2021-05-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82021SI0518(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a commercial dispute addressed to the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A company domiciled in Romania (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought a case before the Okrožno sodišče v Kopru (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against a company domiciled in France (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). It sought payment of damages for the delivery of incorrect goods discovered by the plaintiff’s agent in Koper (Slovenia). The Court of First Instance upheld the claim and issued a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff because the defendant did not fill a statement of defence.
The defendant objected to the default judgment on the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts, relying on an agreement on jurisdiction between the parties favouring the French court.
The Višje sodišče v Kopru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) allowed the appeal and annulled the first instance decision. According to the Court of Appeal, the plea of lack of jurisdiction raised in the appeal must be regarded as well-founded, even if the defendant failed to answer the original claim.
In the renewed proceedings, the Court of First Instance invoked Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and declared the lack of its jurisdiction to hear the case.
Following the subsequent rejection of the plaintiff’s appeal by the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff applied before the Supreme Court and requested a review of whether a defendant who does not file a statement of defence may challenge the jurisdiction of the Slovenian court in an appeal against a default judgment.
According to the Supreme Court, the contractual autonomy of the parties permitted by Article 25(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) does not preclude the parties’ disposition not to rely on the agreed jurisdiction in a particular case. The plaintiff expressed such an interest by bringing an action in a court which jurisdiction had not been agreed upon. By not filing a statement of defence and failing to answer the claim, the defendant must be deemed to have waived its right to invoke the agreement on jurisdiction. The failure to fill the statement of defence must be interpreted as the defendant’s consent to the jurisdiction of the Slovenian court. The objections to the jurisdiction made in the subsequent appeal procedure are irrelevant.
Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the plaintiff’s appeal, annulled both decisions of the lower instances and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new procedure.
(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.