Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2019-07-24; I Cp 826/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2019:I.CP.826.2019
Date: 2019-07-24
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82019SI0724(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case brought before the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Slovenian Court of Appeal’) concerned an assessment of the breach of public policy in recognition proceedings.
In 1992, a dispute between two parties was closed by a judgment delivered by the Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Ljubljana court’), according to which the losing party (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) was obliged to pay a specific amount of money to the successful party (1).
Several years later, new entities (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) alleged that a financial entitlement arising from the Ljubljana court judgment was transferred onto them by a series of cessions and, consequently, brought a request to the Croatian Court of First Instance to enforce the Ljubljana court judgment in their favour. The Croatian Court of First Instance held that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi to initiate the enforcement proceedings and that the declaration whereby they are the holders of the entitlement must be obtained via new proceedings. The Croatian Court of First Instance subsequently dismissed their action as partly unfounded and inadmissible. Following the plaintiffs’ appeal, the Croatian Court of Appeal upheld the first instance judgment despite stating different reasons and held that the plaintiffs’ claim was time barred since the Ljubljana court judgment had been made in 1992 and the limitation period had passed. On this basis, the Croatian Court of Appeal decided that an assessment of the merits of the claim was not necessary.
The defendant applied before the Okrožno sodišče v Kranju (hereinafter ‘the Slovenian Court of First Instance’) and sought the recognition of the judgment of the Croatian Court of First Instance (upheld by the Croatian Court of Appeal) by which the plaintiffs’ financial entitlement was declared time barred. The plaintiffs objected to this recognition, alleging a conflict with Slovenian public policy since the Croatian Court of Appeal, without any further explanations, had ignored their arguments according to which submitting the request for recognition resulted in the suspension of the limitation period. The Slovenian Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiffs’ objection and recognised the foreign judgment.
The plaintiffs then filed an appeal before the Slovenian Court of Appeal, arguing an erroneous assessment of the breach of public policy, whereby the refusal to acknowledge the suspension of the limitation period without any explanation infringed their right to a fair trial as well as their right to access to justice.
The Slovenian Court of Appeal recalled that the public policy clause stipulated by Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (2) must exceptionally be applied in cases of a serious breach of the fundamental principles of law. Indeed, the situation in the present case had to be understood as such. It is a general national principle, as well as a European one, that filing a request for the recognition and enforcement of a claim results in the suspension of the limitation period. The Croatian Court of Appeal ignored this principle and did not provide any explanations as to why it was overlooked nor how the limitation period was counted. It declared the claim to be time barred without any reasoning and the main claim was not further assessed. This approach is manifestly contrary to the principles protected by the URS (3) as well as by the ECHR (4). A person in a dispute not only has the right to bring a case before a court but they also have the right to a fully reasoned and duly justified decision.
The Slovenian Court of Appeal considered the plaintiffs’ appeal to be well founded and held that the foreign judgment shall not be recognised in Slovenia pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation due to its manifest conflict with Slovenian public policy.
(1) Not specified in the judgment.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters .
(3) Ustava Republike Slovenije (Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia).
(4) European Convention on Human Rights.