Višje sodišče v Mariboru; 2016-07-14; I Cpg 263/2016
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSMB:2016:I.CPG.263.2016
Date: 2016-07-15
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82016SI0715(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between a company established in Slovenia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and a company established in Austria (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) concerning the defendant’s liability for damages caused to the plaintiff by a flooding disaster on the Drava river in November 2012.
In July 2015, the defendant filed an action for a negative declaration before the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Klagenfurt’), where it sought a confirmation that it was not liable for any damages to the plaintiff arising from the flood at the Drava river. In September 2015, the plaintiff filled an action before the Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Maribor’).
The Court of First Instance in Maribor stayed the proceedings on the basis of Article 29(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Member States, any court other than the court first seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established’.
The plaintiff disagreed with the stay of the proceedings and appealed before the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’). The Court of Appeal held that proceedings in Slovenia and in Austria have the same cause of action, since both involve the question of liability between the same parties in connection with the flood on the Drava River. It was also found undisputable that the Austrian proceedings were commenced earlier. The application of Article 29 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is then clearly justified. The defendant had a full right to initiate proceedings in Austria to protect its rights. If the plaintiff believes that the Court of First Instance in Klagenfurt lacks the jurisdiction to hear this case, the plaintiff may object to the jurisdiction and use all supporting arguments in the proceedings in Austria.
The Court of Appeal further added that after the Court of First Instance in Klagenfurt establishes its jurisdiction, the Court of First Instance in Maribor must decline its jurisdiction in favour of the Austrian court in accordance with Article 29(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The proceedings in Slovenia may continue only if the Court of First Instance in Klagenfurt declares a lack of its jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance in Maribor.
(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.