Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2022-01-25; I Cpg 525/2021
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2022:I.CPG.525.2021
Date: 2022-01-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Slovenia

82022SI0125(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in proceedings that resulted in a default judgment.
The parties had concluded a loan agreement. When the defendant failed to repay the loan by the agreed deadline, the plaintiff brought an action before the Okrožno sodišče (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking repayment of the loan together with statutory default interest. The defendant submitted a response after the expiry of the statutory 30-day time limit, arguing that its legal representative resided in Germany and could not access the documents served at the company’s registered address. The Court of First Instance rejected the defendant’s submission, holding that the failure to react in time was attributable solely to the defendant’s own negligence, since a legal entity must ensure proper receipt of mail at its registered seat.
As regards jurisdiction, the Court of First Instance relied on Article 2 of the new Lugano Convention (1). It held that the Slovenian courts had jurisdiction, even though the loan agreement contained a clause referring to a Swiss court. That clause was not exclusive, and the defendant had not raised any timely jurisdictional objection. The Court of First Instance, therefore, held that all requirements under Article 318 of the ZPP (2) for issuing a default judgment were met and granted the plaintiff’s claim.
The defendant appealed, but the Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds. It confirmed that service to the defendant’s registered seat was correct and that the legal representative’s residence abroad was irrelevant, since he is not a party to the proceedings. Given the defendant’s failure to lodge a timely response, the issuance of a default judgment was justified. It further recalled that a clause conferring jurisdiction on a foreign court is taken into account only if raised by a timely objection by the defendant; if no such objection is raised, the defendant is deemed to accept the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts. Accordingly, the reliance on Article 2 of the new Lugano Convention by the Court of First Instance was correct.
Finding no procedural irregularities or errors of substantive law, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Zakon o pravdnem postopku (Civil Procedure Act).