Višje sodišče v Kopru; 2024-03-28; II Ip 73/2024
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSKP:2024:II.IP.73.2024
Date: 2024-03-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82024SI0328(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Kopru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the conditions for certifying a domestic enforcement order as a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims.
The creditor (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) requested the Okrajno sodišče v Sežani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to certify an enforcement order issued in proceedings based on an authentic instrument as a European Enforcement Order pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1). The Court of First Instance rejected the request, finding that the enforcement order did not meet the minimum procedural standards laid down by the Regulation.
The Court of First Instance explained that, under Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, a judgment may be certified as a European Enforcement Order only if the proceedings in the Member State of origin complied with the procedural safeguards set out in Chapter III of the Regulation, in particular Articles 13 to 17. Certification is therefore possible only where the debtor was provided with sufficient information about the claim, the procedural steps required to contest it, and the consequences of failing to participate in the proceedings or to lodge an objection. The mere indication of an authentic instrument, together with its date of issue, maturity and the amount of the claim, does not sufficiently define the factual basis of the claim, particularly where the authentic instrument is not served on the debtor together with the enforcement order.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that it had provided sufficient information concerning the basis, amount and maturity of the claim and that, since the debtor had not lodged an objection despite being informed of that possibility, the claim had to be regarded as uncontested. The plaintiff also relied on the Brussels I Regulation (2), arguing that judgments delivered in a Member State are directly enforceable in other Member States without a declaration of enforceability.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It emphasised that Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 establishes a specific and autonomous mechanism for the certification of European Enforcement Orders for uncontested claims, aimed at simplifying cross-border enforcement, but subject to strict procedural safeguards. The fact that enforcement may be available under other instruments of European Union law (such as the Brussels I Regulation) does not affect the applicability of those requirements. The Court of Appeal further noted that the rejection of the request for certification does not prevent the plaintiff from seeking enforcement abroad by other available legal means.
The Court of Appeal therefore upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.