Višje delovno in socialno sodišče; 2025-06-04; Pdp 193/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VDSS:2025:PDP.193.2025
Date: 2025-06-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI0604(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje delovno in socialno sodišče (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in proceedings arising from an accident at work in Austria involving several defendants.
The plaintiff sought damages for an accident sustained on 20 September 2022 on a construction site in Austria. He brought the action against his Slovenian employer, which had posted him to work abroad (hereinafter ‘the first defendant’), the insurer of that employer (hereinafter ‘the second defendant’), and the Austrian undertaking to which he had been posted (hereinafter ‘the third defendant’). The Court of First Instance rejected the objection of the third defendant that the Slovenian courts lacked international jurisdiction.
The Court of First Instance based jurisdiction on Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) which permits proceedings against a number of defendants to be brought before the court of the domicile of one of them where the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
The third defendant appealed, arguing that the claims were not sufficiently closely connected, that there was no contractual relationship between it and the plaintiff, that different substantive laws would apply to the claims, and that it could not reasonably have foreseen being sued before a Slovenian court.
The Court of Appeal held that the third defendant could reasonably have foreseen proceedings before the Slovenian courts because it used the labour of a worker posted from Slovenia. Referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the corresponding provision of the Brussels I Regulation (2), the Court of Appeal further held that the existence of different legal bases for claims against different defendants does not in itself preclude the application of Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). It added that the claims against the first and third defendants were, in any event, based on the same delictual foundation and arose from the same work accident.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the claims were so closely connected that it was expedient to hear them together. A joint hearing would prevent divergent findings of fact regarding the same event and avoid the risk of incompatible decisions. The question whether Austrian law might apply to the claim against the third defendant was not decisive at the jurisdiction stage.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision that the Slovenian courts had international jurisdiction over the claim against the third defendant.
(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).
(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.