Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2024-09-05; III Cp 1366/2024
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2024:III.CP.1366.2024
Date: 2024-09-05
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82024SI0905(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in a dispute relating to the disturbance of possession of immovable property located abroad.
The plaintiff brought an action before the Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking judicial protection of possession in relation to a holiday apartment located in Croatia, which he claimed formed part of the parties’ joint property. He alleged that the defendant had changed the lock on the entrance door, thereby preventing him from accessing and using the apartment. The plaintiff sought an order requiring the defendant to reinstall the previous lock or hand over the keys to the new lock and to allow him unobstructed access. He also applied for an interim measure with identical content.
The Court of First Instance declared that the Slovenian courts lacked jurisdiction to decide on the dispute and rejected both the action and the application for an interim measure. It held that the subject matter of the dispute was immovable property situated in Croatia. Therefore, pursuant to Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), the courts of the Member State where the property is situated have exclusive jurisdiction.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the dispute concerned the protection of factual control over the property (possession) rather than rights in rem. He maintained that the rule on exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) did not apply to possession disputes and that jurisdiction should instead be determined on the basis of the defendant’s domicile.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the dispute fell within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and held that, in determining international jurisdiction, the decisive factor is that the indirect subject matter of the dispute is immovable property. Referring to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court explained that the concept of rights in rem for the purposes of Article 24 extends to actions seeking to determine the possession of immovable property or to ensure the protection of prerogatives connected with it (see Cases C-386/2012 or C-605/141(2)).
The Court emphasised that although possession proceedings aim to protect factual control over a thing regardless of the underlying right, the purpose of the requested judicial protection was to prohibit further disturbance of possession or to restore possession of the immovable property. The close connection between the dispute and the immovable property therefore justified the application of exclusive jurisdiction based on the location of the property. Such an interpretation was consistent with the objectives of legal certainty and predictability, as well as with the principle of proximity, since courts at the place where the property is situated are best placed to establish the relevant facts.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 October 2013, Schneider, C‑386/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:633.
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 December 2015, Virpi Komu and Others v Pekka Komu and Jelena Komu, C-605/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:833.