Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2018-03-06; I Cpg 102/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2018:I.CPG.102.2018
Date: 2018-03-06
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82018SI0306(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The plaintiff in this case, domiciled in Slovenia, entered into a contract for the provision of translation services with the defendant domiciled in the Czech Republic. A few years later, the plaintiff considered that the defendant failed to fulfil the contractual obligations and asked the Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to issue a European Payment Order (EPO) for the payment of EUR 6_055.61.
The defendant entered a statement of opposition against the EPO, after which the Court of First Instance ordered the case to continue in accordance with the rules of ordinary civil procedure. Only during this procedure, the defendant raised an objection alleging the lack of jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts asserting that the case should fall under the jurisdiction of the Czech courts on the basis of defendant’s domicile and, moreover, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Prague on the basis on the agreement made between the parties. The defendant also disputed the substance and amount of the claim.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the objection, stating that the objection against the jurisdiction had to be entered with the statement of opposition against the EPO at the latest. As it was not the case here, the Court of First instance concluded that the defendant had entered an appearance to the proceedings and implicitly agreed to the jurisdiction. In such case, Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (2) implies the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts.
The case was appealed before the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which cited case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, mainly Case C-144/12 (3), according to which ‘where a defendant does not contest the jurisdiction of the court … in his statement of opposition … that opposition cannot produce, in regard to that defendant, effects other than those that flow from Article 17(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006’. Moreover, ‘the defendant may use the standard form set out in Annex VI to that regulation in order to enter a statement of opposition… That form does not provide for the option of contesting the jurisdiction…’. ‘Consequently, a statement of opposition … which does not contain any challenge to the jurisdiction … and which is not coupled with arguments on the substance of the case cannot be regarded as constituting the entering of an appearance within the meaning of Article 24’ of the Brussels I Regulation. Also ‘the fact that the defendant put forward arguments on the substance of the case in his statement of opposition … does not mean that he entered an appearance within the meaning of Article 24’ of the Brussels I Regulation.
The Court of Appeal held as clear that the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts cannot be established on the basis of Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation. The first instance decision was also held materially wrong as the procedure concerning the EPO cannot be regarded as the same as the subsequent proceedings based on ordinary civil procedure rules. Moreover, the exclusive jurisdiction of the court in Prague was never disputed between the parties and it should had been taken into account by the Court of First Instance.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the Court of First Instance fundamentally breached procedural rules by the erroneous application of the provisions governing the jurisdiction. The appeal was granted, and the first instance decision was annulled.
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.
(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.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 June 2013, Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo, C-144/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:393, paragraphs 3;1, 33 and 41.