Višje sodišče v Celju; 2018-07-11; II Cpg 81/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSCE:2018:II.CPG.81.2018
Date: 2018-07-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82018SI0711(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case addressed a question of international jurisdiction resolved by the Višje sodišče v Celju (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
Following a declaration of personal bankruptcy by one the spouses (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), the other spouse (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action before the Okrožno sodišče v Celju (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), in which it lodged its claim to a property located in Greece. The Court of First Instance invoked the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and the Insolvency Regulation (2). The Court of First Instance weighted the application of both regulations, referring also to the established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), according to which, Insolvency Regulation shall be applied only in cases directly related to insolvency proceedings or whether the action can be brought under general rules of civil and commercial law. In the present case, the plaintiff’s right was related to the marriage of the person in bankruptcy and it could be applied also outside the insolvency proceedings. Therefore, the Court of First Instance applied the Brussels I Regulation (recast), specifically its Article 24(1), according to which an exclusive jurisdiction ‘in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property [shall have] the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated’ and declared a lack of its jurisdiction.
The plaintiff appealed the conclusion concerning jurisdiction, alleging that national law (ZFPPIPP (3)) provides an obligation to lodge its claim in bankruptcy proceedings within a specified time limit, otherwise such claim would not be considered relevant and the right would be permanently ceased.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the conclusion of the Court of First Instance concerning the difference in application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and the Insolvency Regulation as well as the correct application of the CJEU’s case-law. Matters that may be determined by the law of the Member State of the opening of insolvency proceedings are provided by Article 4(2) of the Insolvency Regulation. The plaintiff wrongly argued that the right exercised through the present action is exclusively related to the insolvency proceedings, which would justify the application of the ZFPPIPP. Conversely, due to the substance of the plaintiff’s right to the property in question, acquired during the marriage, the plaintiff may enforce its right against the defendant under the general procedural rules too.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the correct application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and its Article 24(1). Since the property is situated in Greece, it is the courts of Greece who have jurisdiction in this case.
The appeal was dismissed, and the first instance decision was upheld.
(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.
(2) Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.
(3) Zakon o finančnem poslovanju, postopkih zaradi insolventnosti in prisilnem prenehanju (Law on Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Forced Termination).