Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije; 1009-01-15; Cp 21/2008
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2009:CP.21.2008
Date: 2009-01-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82009SI0115(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Vrhovno sodišče (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerns the application of the Brussels I Regulation (1) to the recognition of a foreign judgment.
The plaintiff applied to the Okrožno sodišče v Celju (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for the recognition of judgments delivered by Polish courts, by which the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff PLN 500 000 plus statutory default interest, and to reimburse the plaintiff’s legal costs. The Court of First Instance found that the plaintiff’s application satisfied the conditions prescribed by the Brussels I Regulation, that there were no grounds for refusing recognition under Article 34 of the Regulation, and accordingly granted the application. The defendant objected to the recognition, but the Court of First Instance dismissed the objection.
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Brussels I Regulation had been applied erroneously or that it did not apply to the dispute within the meaning of Article 1 of the Regulation.
The Supreme Court recalled that the Court of First Instance had decided on recognition in a special simplified procedure in which the adversarial principle is not ensured, and that the court had confined itself to examining the formal conditions under Article 41, in conjunction with Article 33, of the Brussels I Regulation. Nevertheless, the examination of both the substantive and formal conditions, pursuant to the defendant’s objection under Article 34 of the Regulation, was correctly carried out at a later stage by the panel of the Court of First Instance.
The Supreme Court noted that the defendant had not explained why the Brussels I Regulation should not apply. The case clearly concerned a civil and commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1 of the Regulation, as it arose from a sales contract and the defendant’s obligation to pay the purchase price. The defendant had not invoked any circumstances that would fall within the exceptions listed in Article 1(2) of the Brussels I Regulation.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded and upheld the contested decision.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.