Višje sodišče v Mariboru; 2025-08-05; III Cp 555/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSMB:2025:III.CP.555.2025
Date: 2025-08-05
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI0805(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in proceedings relating to parental responsibility and maintenance in respect of children habitually resident in Austria.
The plaintiff sought a decision concerning the care, custody and maintenance of the parties’ minor children. The Court of First Instance held that the Slovenian courts lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued, in substance, that proceedings in Austria to recover maintenance had been unsuccessful because the defendant had no employment or assets there. She further submitted that care and custody had already been determined by an agreement concluded before the Youth and Family Office in Graz, and asked the Slovenian court to at least decide on maintenance and recognise that agreement.
The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance had correctly found that the children’s habitual residence was in Austria and that, accordingly, the Slovenian courts lacked jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility under Article 7(1) of the new Brussels II Regulation (recast) (1). The plaintiff did not dispute that connecting factor in the appeal.
The Court of Appeal further held that the issues of care and custody, contact and maintenance were inextricably linked. The Court of First Instance had therefore correctly required either a prior decision on the other aspects of parental responsibility or an application covering all those aspects. It also noted that the agreements concluded before the authority in Graz were informal and did not constitute enforceable titles.
The Court of Appeal therefore confirmed that the Slovenian courts lacked jurisdiction and that the application had to be dismissed. It allowed the appeal only in part to correct the wording of the operative part.
(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast).