Višje sodišče v Mariboru; 2020-01-28; I Cp 1055/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSMB:2020:I.CP.1055.2019
Date: 2020-01-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82020SI0128(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of the international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts addressed to the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
The close family members (hereinafter ’the plaintiffs’) of a person injured in a work accident at a construction site in Germany brought an action before the Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) and sought compensation for psychological damage suffered as a consequence of the severe disability of the injured person. The defendants were: a Slovenian construction company where the person injured was employed (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’), a Slovenian insurance company where defendant 2 had its general civil liability concluded (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) and a German construction company (hereinafter ‘defendant 3’) as the defendant 2 acted on the construction site as sub-contractor of defendant 3. The Court of First Instance decided that it has jurisdiction over all three defendants pursuant to Article 8 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings’.
This decision was appealed by defendants 2 and 3. They alleged that the Slovenian courts lack the jurisdiction to hear this case, mainly because (i) the conditions to hear and determine the claims together pursuant to Article 8 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) were not fulfilled, (ii) the contract between defendants 2 and 3 provided a jurisdiction clause in favour of the German courts for all future disputes arising from the contract, (iii) the accident took place in Germany, (iv) German law does not recognise a claim for compensation for psychological damage as a consequence of the injury of a family member, and (v) defendant 3 was not responsible for the occupational safety of the construction site as it was guarded by the investor.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the correct application of Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). This rule constitutes an exception to the general rule provided by Article 4 of this Regulation according to which ‘persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State’. The application of this Article is supported also by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The conditions to hear the claims against a number of defendants are clear: the claims must be so closely linked that they are to be treated and decided jointly and the joint treatment of claims avoids the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceeding. The argument that German law does not recognise claims such as laid down in this case even supports the need to join the claims under common proceedings in Slovenia since such a claim would be dismissed in Germany, but it is allowed in Slovenia. This is a clear example of ‘irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings’.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction clause has no impact on third parties (such as the plaintiffs in this case), but it obliges only the parties to that contract (defendant 2 and 3). The Court of Appeal further stated that the assessment of jurisdiction is only the early stage of the proceedings, in which the court does not have to investigate thoroughly the circumstances of the case such as who was responsible for the construction site. For the assessment of jurisdiction is sufficient that there was undoubtedly a mutual link between the claims and the interest of the joint hearing against all three defendants.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first instance decision.
(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.