Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije; 2018-07-19; Cp 19/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2018:CP.19.2018
Date: 2018-07-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82018SI0719(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
In this case, the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (hereinafter ’the Supreme Court’) decides on the enforcement of the foreign judgment.
There was a dispute between a natural person domiciled in Italy (hereinafter ’the plaintiff’) and a Slovenian company (hereinafter ‘the defendant), which was resolved by the Tribunale di Massa (Italy) in the form of a payment order amounting to EUR 125.107,05.
The plaintiff then brought the proceedings before the Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking the enforcement of Italian payment order. The Court of First Instance invoked Article 39 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and granted the application.
The defendant appealed before the Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging an erroneous application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), namely its Article 45(1)(a), according to which ‘the recognition of a judgment shall be refused, if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy (ordre public) in the Member State addressed’, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The defendant further appealed to the Supreme Court, which confirmed that the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is crucial in determining enforceability of the payment order in question. The defendant alleged that the payment order had the characteristics of a provisional measure and its recognition and enforcement in Slovenia would interfere with Slovenian procedural law. The Supreme Court pointed out that similar questions were already resolved by Slovenian as well as by European case-law. Moreover, Article 2(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) directly provides that recognition and enforcement include also provisional, including protective, measures. As the Court of First Instance correctly held, Article 39 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) stipulates that ‘a judgment given in [Italy] which is enforceable in [Italy] shall be enforceable in [Slovenia] without any declaration of enforceability being required’. Therefore, the question of enforceability is governed by Italian law and not by Slovenian procedural law. The allegations based on a breach of Slovenian procedural law are therefore unfounded.
The defendant further alleged that he had already filled an objection to the Italian payment order thereby Article 51(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) also suggests that the enforcement proceedings in Slovenia shall be stayed. The Supreme Court recalled that staying the proceedings on the basis of alleged Article 51(1) is not obligatory, but it depends on court’s discretion. The aim of this provision is to protect the party against whom an enforcement is sought in cases of exceptional damage, which is not the case in the current dispute.
The Supreme Court found no grounds to refuse the enforcement of the disputed payment order. 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.