Višje sodišče v Mariboru; 2016-01-19; I Cp 1093/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSMB:2016:I.CP.1093.2015
Date: 2016-01-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82016SI0119(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A Slovenian natural person (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against a clinic established in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The parties concluded a contract concerning medical services (an operation on both eyes). The plaintiff claimed financial compensation for eye damage he suffered due to alleged erroneous treatment by the defendant.
The case was tried by the Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), where the defendant objected, citing the lack of jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts.
Following the rejection of its objection, the defendant appealed to the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’). The defendant based its appeal on several grounds. Among other things, it alleged erroneous applications of Articles 15 and 16 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), and incorrect factual findings or breach of procedural rules by failing to provide the defendant by documents submitted by the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision concerning application of the Brussels I Regulation and explained that Articles 15 and 16 (Jurisdiction over consumer contracts) were correctly applied to this case. By virtue of Article 16, 'a consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract ... in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled'. The Court of Appeal found undisputable that the plaintiff, domiciled in Slovenia, was a patient treated on a contractual basis by the defendant. The damage resulting from a contractual relationship constitutes a claim in respect of a contract and not a claim in respect of delict or quasi delict by virtue of Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation. The Court of Appeal upheld the reasoning of the Court of First Instance concerning the assessment of the case as consumer dispute, since all the conditions set out in Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation were fulfilled: the contract has been ‘concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession’, and it has been ‘concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member State or to several States’. Such assessment was supported by several judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Even the fact of directing the activities outside Germany and also to Slovenia had been sufficiently proved, since the information provided via the defendant's website and all mutual communication between the parties was made in English, which is not an official language in Germany, so the intention of the defendant to provide its medical services abroad was evident. The fact that English and German are not official languages in Slovenia is irrelevant as it cannot be reasonably expected that a provider of services would provide information on its website in all existing languages, especially in lesser-used languages such as Slovenian language.
The grounds of appeal alleging incomplete factual findings by the Court of the First Instance was dismissed as the facts proposed by the defendant were not held legally relevant. The Court of Appeal also rebutted the allegations that the defendant had no chance to comment on some documents provided by the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeal upheld all the findings of the Court of First Instance and held the defendant’s appeal unfounded. The first instance decision was confirmed.
(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.