Višje sodišče v Mariboru; 2025-02-12; I Cpg 14/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSMB:2025:I.CPG.14.2025
Date: 2025-02-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI0212(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned international jurisdiction in a dispute concerning payment under a short-term tenancy of immovable property situated in another Member State.
A company established in Germany (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) sought payment from a company established in Slovenia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) for the letting of several apartments in Germany for 18 days. The proceedings began as enforcement proceedings on the basis of an authentic document and continued as civil proceedings following the defendant’s objection. The Court of First Instance, of its own motion, declared that the Slovenian courts lacked international jurisdiction, annulled the procedural steps already taken, and dismissed the action.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the Slovenian courts had jurisdiction on the basis of the defendant’s domicile and under the exception to exclusive jurisdiction for short-term tenancies in Article 24(1), second subparagraph, of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). It also submitted that the defendant had entered an appearance and thereby accepted the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts, and that national private international law rules should apply.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that, under Article 24(1), first subparagraph, of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the courts of the Member State in which the immovable property is situated have exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings which have as their object tenancies of immovable property. In the present case, that meant the German courts. The exception for tenancies concluded for temporary private use for a maximum of six consecutive months stipulated by the second subparagraph of that Article applies only where the tenant is a natural person, and both parties are domiciled in the same Member State. Since the present case concerned a tenancy between two legal persons established in different Member States, that exception did not apply. Jurisdiction, therefore, lay exclusively with the German courts.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the argument based on tacit prorogation. It was observed that the proceedings had begun as enforcement proceedings on the basis of an authentic document, so that the defendant had not had an earlier opportunity to object to jurisdiction. In any event, where jurisdiction is exclusive under Article 24, jurisdiction cannot be founded on the defendant’s entering an appearance within the meaning of Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Court of First Instance.
(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 (recast).