Višje sodišče v Celju; 2018-02-21; III Cpg 11/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSCE:2018:III.CPG.11.2018
Date: 2018-02-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82018SI0221(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between a Slovenian company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) as a buyer and an Italian company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) as a seller for a payment of EUR 18_949.15 resulting from a delivery, which was alleged to be of poor quality. The parties had concluded a selling contract, where they agreed on the application of the ExWorks Incoterms rule according to which a buyer is responsible for loading the goods and the seller has a minimum responsibility for the goods after loading.
The Okrožno sodišče v Celju (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) cited the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and held the dispute as falling within ‘matters relating to a contract’ as provided for in Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). In such case the jurisdiction lies with the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question. The Court of First Instance cited the ExWorks rules and held the place of fulfilment of the obligation as being in Italy. Conversely, the plaintiff argued, by application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’. The plaintiff alleged that the alleged poor quality of the delivery was discovered only after its unpacking in Slovenia, therefore the place where the harmful event occurred lies in Slovenia.
The case was further examined by Višje sodišče v Celju (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which concluded that the plaintiff’s claim had arisen out of the breach of contractual obligations and the conclusions of the Court of First Instance were held correct. In this case, Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) should be applicable, under which the jurisdiction belongs to the courts of the place of performance of the obligation in question. Since the ExWorks rule defines Italy as the place of performance, the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts is excluded. It was not disputed that the defendant loaded the goods in Italy, so the Court of Appeal held that it was possible to check the quality of goods there.
The Court of Appeal 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.