Županijski sud u Puli-Pola; 2016-10-10; Gž-230/15-3
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:HR:ZSPU:2016:1
Date: 2016-10-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Croatia

82016HR1010(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The Županijski sud u Puli-Pola (hereinafter: County Court in Pula) issued a decision in case number Gž-230/2015-3 of 10 October 2016, in which it accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs I.H., O.H. and K.H., From S., and by the same decision cancelled the decision of the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola (hereinafter: Municipal Court in Pula) in case number 4 P-93/14-12 of 3 November 2014, and rejected the objection of the defendant R.S.S.J.W. EGen, R. of A.. The defendant objected, on the grounds that the Municipal Court in Pula had no jurisdiction to decide in a civil procedure between parties to establish the nullity and the cancellation of the lien registered.
In its first instance decision, the court declared itself incompetent, annulled all of the actions taken in the proceedings, dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff legal expenses in the amount of 1 000.00 HRK.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal against that decision, stating, amongst other things, that the first instance court disregarded the agreement of the parties under the provisions of Article A of the Loan Agreement, concluded between the parties, in which the jurisdiction of the Court in Croatia was contracted.
In the conducted procedure, it was found that the first instance Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu (hereinafter: Municipal Civil Court in Zagreb) declined their jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, wrongly referring to the provisions of Article 55 of the Zakon o rješavanju sukoba zakona s propisima drugih zemalja u određenim odnosima (Official Gazette 53/91 and others, hereinafter: ZRSZ), with the explanation that it was not understandable from the content of the file if the defendant had its head office or branch office or representative office in the territory of the Republic of Croatia.
Regarding the jurisdiction of the court in this civil procedure with an international element, the applicable law is Council Regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters ("Brussels I Regulation"), which, in Article 76, prescribes that the Brussels I Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community, of which the Republic of Croatia has been a member from 01 July 2013. Namely, the Brussels I Regulation applies to proceedings initiated after the accession of Republic of Croatia to the European Union, which means  proceedings initiated after 1 July 2013, and the proceedings in this case were initiated by the filing of a lawsuit on 07 March 2014.
During the conducted procedure, it was determined that this exact Loan agreement was concluded outside the scope of the occupation and profession of the plaintiffs, and that it was a consumer credit concluded within the business of the defendant, and it is related to a Member State of residence of the plaintiffs as consumers (Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation).
According to the provisions of Article 16(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, a consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the Member State in which that party is domiciled or in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled. This means that, according to the provisions of the Loan agreement, the jurisdiction of a court is to be chosen by the parties. In the Loan Agreement, the parties had agreed upon the eligible jurisdiction of the court in accordance with Article 16 of the Brussels I Regulation.
Because of this, the first instance court correctly based its decision on the provision of Article 380(3) of the Zakon o parničnom postupku (Official Gazette 53/91 and other), that the first instance court in the Republic of Croatia, to whom the claim was filed, was competent to try this case and should continue the first instance proceedings.