Vrhovno sodišče RS; 2016-12-19; II Ips 7/2012
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:II.IPS.7.2012
Date: 2016-12-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82016SI1219(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A Slovenian natural person (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and an Austrian leasing company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) concluded a financial leasing contract. Because of the non-payment of instalments that were due under the contract, the plaintiff was ordered by the Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to pay the defendant a sum of EUR 16_692.22. The judgment became final and enforceable when the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) dismissed the defendant’s appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was appealed by the plaintiff on a point of law to the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’). Before the Supreme Court ruled on the appeal, the parties reached an extrajudicial settlement, by which they agreed that the plaintiff would pay the principal sum and the costs of the proceedings and enforcement. However, the Supreme Court later annulled both decisions of the lower courts and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for rehearing.
The plaintiff thereupon brought a counter-claim before the Court of First Instance alleging unjust enrichment and seeking from the defendant reimbursement of the sum of EUR 18_678.45, corresponding to the amount he had paid pursuant to the settlement agreement.
Rehearing the case, the Court of First Instance dismissed the claim brought initially by the defendant and allowed plaintiff’s counterclaim. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held that the counter-claim was inadmissible because the claims were so reciprocally dependent as to be mutually exclusive. The Court of Appeal, however, declared the Slovenian courts having jurisdiction by virtue of Article 15(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) which regards consumer contracts for a loan repayable by instalments.
The judgment was again appealed on a point of law to the Supreme Court; the defendant alleged a lack of jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts under the Brussels I Regulation because, among other things, the case was not a consumer contract, since the claim of the plaintiff did not arise from a financial leasing contract but concerned instead a claim based on unjust enrichment.
The Supreme Court decided to stay the proceedings and to submit a request to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Articles 5(1), 6(3) and 15(1) of the Brussels I Regulation.
The CJEU provided its interpretation in Case C-185/2015 (2), where the CJEU ruled that Article 6(3) of the Brussels I Regulation, according to which a person may also be sued ‘on a counter-claim arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based, in the court in which the original claim is pending‘, must be interpreted ‘as meaning that the court designated by that provision as regards counterclaims has jurisdiction to hear a counterclaim seeking the reimbursement on the ground of unjust enrichment of a sum corresponding to the amount agreed in an extrajudicial settlement, where that claim is brought in fresh legal proceedings between the same parties, following the setting aside of the judgment delivered in the original proceedings between them, the enforcement of which gave rise to the extrajudicial settlement.’
As only the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts was disputed in the appeal on a point of law and taking into account interpretation of the CJEU, the Supreme Court held that the Slovenian courts had jurisdiction over the counter-claim by virtue of Article 6(3) of the Brussels I Regulation and dismissed the defendant’s appeal.
(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.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 October 2016, Marjan Kostanjevec v F&S Leasing, GmbH., C-185/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:763.