Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2020-10-27; I Cp 743/2020
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2020:I.CP.743.2020
Date: 2020-10-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82020SI1027(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in case of counterclaims, resolved by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
In proceedings (hereinafter ‘original proceedings’) held before the Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), a natural person domiciled in Croatia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) sought the return of three sculptures that were handed over to the plaintiff by the sculptor for sale.
In the present proceedings, initiated after the original proceedings, the plaintiff filed before the same Court of First Instance a counterclaim and sought the return of a plaster cast intended to be used to create the sculptures. The Court of First Instance based its jurisdiction in the present proceedings on Article 8(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued on a counterclaim arising from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based, in the court in which the original claim is pending’. The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts, but the Court of First Instance dismissed the objection.
The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, invoking Article 338(1) of the ZPP (2). The defendant also alleged an erroneous application of Article 8(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The conditions provided therein (the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based) were not fulfilled since the claims in these two proceedings are not reciprocal claims having a common origin in the same contract, nor did they concern the same subject. The defendant also complained that the Court of First Instance relied only on the plaintiff’s statements, according to which the plaster cast should have been delivered to Ljubljana, but the court ignored the defendant’s contradictory statements. In such a situation, the Court of First Instance should invoke Article 7(7)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), and, failing to do so, erred in substantive law. The defendant further alleged that the service of casting the sculpture should have been done in Zagreb and therefore the defendant could only be sued before the court in Zagreb.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the view of the Court of First Instance that Article 8(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) must be assessed more broadly, in the light of the purpose of that provision, which is to avoid redundant proceedings and the adoption of mutually contradictory judgments in different proceedings. The examination of the counterclaim will require an assessment of the same facts on which the defendant relies in original proceedings. In the original proceedings, the defendant (being a plaintiff there), in addition to the facts supporting its claim, has to prove that there is no outstanding claim as a result of the objection of the other party. The Court of First Instance would dismiss the defendant's claim for returning the three sculptures in the original proceedings if it finds that the defendant is obliged to return the plaster cast and vice versa. This fact creates a sufficient interconnection between the original proceedings and counterclaim in the present proceedings to justify the application of Article 8(3) of the Brussel I Regulation (recast).
The Court of Appeal upheld the order of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal.
(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.
(2) Zakon o pravdnem postopku (Code of Civil Procedure).