Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2010-03-31; II Cp 459/2009
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2010:II.CP.459.2009
Date: 2010-03-31
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82010SI0331(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerns the question of jurisdiction in a case involving several defendants.
The Court of First Instance held that it had jurisdiction to decide on the plaintiff’s claims against all the defendants. It subsequently discontinued the proceedings against defendant 4 on the ground that the translation of the judicial documents into German had not been provided.
Defendant 6 appealed against the decision on jurisdiction, arguing that the Slovenian court lacked jurisdiction because there was no legal connection between her and the other defendants and because the plaintiff had not specified the nature of her obligation. The plaintiff appealed against the discontinuance of the proceedings against defendant 4, claiming that the latter understands and communicates in Slovenian and that a translation into German was therefore unnecessary.
Regarding defendant 6’s appeal, the Court of Appeal recalled that, as she is a foreign citizen domiciled in Germany, the provisions of the Brussels I Regulation (1) apply instead of those of the ZPP (2). Article 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation provides that ‘A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings’. In the present case, the plaintiff brought several claims against the first three defendants, ranging from the annulment of a settlement to the issuance of a land-registry document. Against defendant 6, however, the plaintiff brought only a monetary claim based on an alleged out-of-court settlement with defendant 1. The plaintiff’s claim against defendant 6 was not related to the claims against the first three defendants, nor was it a claim in rem within the meaning of Article 22 of the Brussels I Regulation. The Court of Appeal held that the claims were not based on the same factual and legal grounds. Consequently, the Slovenian courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the case against defendant 6. The appeal lodged by defendant 6 was upheld, and the action against her was dismissed.
Regarding the plaintiff’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance should have verified the plaintiff’s assertion that defendant 4 understood the Slovenian language. If that were the case, no translation into German would have been required under Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (3). As the Court of First Instance failed to assess the proposed evidence in this respect, the plaintiff’s appeal was also upheld. The initial decision was therefore set aside and the case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings.
(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.
(2) Zakon o pravdnem postopku (Civil Procedure Act).
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters.