Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije; 2018-06-07; Cp 14/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2018:CP.14.2018
Date: 2018-06-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82018SI0607(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a request for the recognition and enforcement of an Italian judgment in Slovenia. The Okrožno sodišče v Kopru declared the Italian judgment enforceable in Slovenia but following the defendant’s objection this court declared a lack of its jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
Based on the request of the defendant, the Court of First Instanced stayed the enforcement proceedings as the judgment to be enforced was the subject of an appellate proceeding in Italy. The plaintiff later announced that the Italian appellate proceeding was rejected. The Court of First Instance decided to continue in the enforcement procedure and rejected the defendant’s objection against the enforceability.
The defendant appealed to the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging a breach of the adversarial principle provided in Article 43(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), as well as a breach of national law and its constitutional rights as it was not notified of the plaintiff's announcement on basis of which the Court of First Instance continued with the proceedings. The defendant also claimed that the recognition was manifestly contrary to public policy in Slovenia as provided in Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Recognition as the plaintiff’s claim was not clear enough.
The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff’s request to continue in the proceedings cannot be regarded as a new claim of which the defendant must be informed, as such a request may end only in the continuation of the proceedings and has no influence on the final verdict of the court. The allegation of breach of the adversarial principle was unfounded. The Brussels I Regulation does not require a foreign judgment to be res judicata in the Member State of origin. The decision to stay proceedings, if the original judgment is being appealed, is left to the discretion of the applying court. The recognition of a judgment may be refused only due to reasons set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Regulation and a foreign judgment may not be reviewed as to its substance (Article 36 and Article 45(1)). The determination of the claim and the sum sought by the plaintiff were held sufficiently provided in the Italian judgment, even if the maturity date was not clear enough. But, the Court of Appeal recalled that not every distinction between two legal systems is eligible to establish a public policy clause, but such distinction must constitute a manifest breach of the rule of law of the state in which recognition is sought, which was not the case here.
The appeal was held as unfounded on all grounds 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.