Višje sodišče v Mariboru; 2007-08-27; III Cp 1643/2007
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSMB:2007:III.CP.1643.2007
Date: 2007-08-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82007SI0827(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerns jurisdiction in divorce proceedings.
The Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) declared that it lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the case and dismissed the action. It held that, under Article 3(1)(a), second indent, of the new Brussels II Regulation (1), ‘in matters relating to divorce […] jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of the Member State in whose territory the spouses were last habitually resident, insofar as one of them still resides there‘. In the present case, the spouses had habitually resided in Germany, where the defendant continued to live.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the parties had only a temporary address in Germany and never a permanent residence, and that the defendant is not a German citizen. The plaintiff further claimed that the Court of First Instance had failed to specify the legal basis for the dismissal and that Slovenian law might nevertheless confer jurisdiction on the Slovenian courts.
The Court of Appeal found that the reasoning of the Court of First Instance was sufficiently clear and that the grounds for the finding of lack of jurisdiction and for the dismissal had been adequately explained. The appeal ground alleging insufficient reasoning was therefore unfounded.
Jurisdiction in this case is governed by European Union law, in particular the new Brussels II Regulation, which takes precedence over national jurisdictional rules. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Article 3 of the Regulation had been correctly applied. For the purposes of the Regulation, it is irrelevant whether the spouses’ habitual residence was temporary or permanent, and the defendant’s nationality is likewise legally irrelevant. What is decisive is that the defendant habitually resides at an address in Germany. Pursuant to Article 6(a) of the new Brussels II Regulation, ‘a spouse who is habitually resident in the territory of a Member State may be sued in another Member State only in accordance with Articles 3, 4 and 5’. In view of Article 3 of the Regulation, the Court of First Instance correctly declared that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the action.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.