Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2018-05-04; II Ip 1067/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2018:II.IP.1067.2018
Date: 2018-05-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82018SI0504(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a request for the enforcement of an obligation between a creditor domiciled in Slovenia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and a debtor domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) ascertained that the defendant had no bank account in Slovenia which meant that the enforcement could not be successfully carried out in Slovenia, even if the claim was held justified. Therefore, the Court of First Instance declared a lack of jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts and dismissed the action.
The plaintiff appealed to the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) invoking Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), according to which the action can be also filed in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question, which, in this case, was undisputedly in Maribor, Slovenia.
The Court of Appeal stated that the Brussels I Regulation addresses the issue of jurisdiction, whilst the procedural rules of the enforcement itself are governed by national law. Slovenian law stipulates that the successful request for enforcement covers not only the declaration that the claim was justified but it also includes authorisation for the effective execution of the claim itself. As was correctly found by the Court of First Instance, there was no bank account held by the defendant in the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts, so the claim could not be effectively executed. The Court of Appeal further cited Article 22(5) of the Brussels I Regulation according to which ‘in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced … shall have exclusive jurisdiction’. Therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction lies with the German courts, since the defendant had its bank account in German bank.
The appeal was held unfounded and the first instance decision was upheld.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.