Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2018-03-21; II Cp 2226/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2018:II.CP.2226.2017
Date: 2018-03-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82018SI0321(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The plaintiff, as a borrower, concluded a credit agreement with the creditor - company F domiciled in the Czech Republic. The creditor’s claim against the plaintiff was later transferred to a legal person domiciled in Slovenia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The plaintiff filed an action against the defendant seeking the annulment of the credit agreement and the payment of EUR 2_578.84.
The Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) declared the agreement to be invalid and ordered the defendant to pay the claimed sum.
The defendant appealed to the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) on the several grounds. It objected, inter alia, (a) the adoption of the first instance decision in absence of the director of the defendant, (b) the passive legitimacy of the defendant since the contract had been concluded with Czech company F and (c) the assessment of the plaintiff as the consumer, as the agreement was of a business character and therefore the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts is not given, moreover, when the contract contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Czech courts.
The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds for appeal, stating that
(a) the absence of a person at proceedings due to a medical reason must be supported by a medical record, which was not served by the defendant,
(b) the creditor’s claim was transferred to the defendant under a contract and the plaintiff has the right to claim against the transferee all the rights that he could invoke against the original creditor,
(c) the assessment of the plaintiff as a consumer was correct; even the credit agreement itself mentioned the application of the ZPotK (1) several times.
The application of Articles 15 to 17 of the Brussels I Regulation (2) (Jurisdiction over consumer contracts) and Article 6 of the Rome I Regulation (3) (Consumer contracts) clearly shows the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts as the courts of plaintiff’s domicile was given.
All other findings of the Court of First Instance were also held correct (for example (i) the nullity of the contract due to lack of administrative permission of the creditor to provide financial services, (ii) the amount to be paid or (iii) the costs of the proceedings). The appeal was held unfounded on all grounds and the first instance decision was upheld.
(1) Zakon o potrošniških kreditih (Consumer Credit Act).
(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) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).