Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije; 2007-02-20; Cpg 2/2006
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2007:CPG.2.2006
Date: 2007-02-20
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82007SI0220(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Vrhovno sodišče (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerns the recognition in Slovenia of an Italian judgment.
On 14 April 2004, the Okrožno sodišče v Kopru (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) recognised a judgment delivered by an Italian court on 11 March 2002. The defendant lodged an objection, which the Court of First Instance sitting as a three-judge panel dismissed.
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging that they had been unable to take part in the proceedings before the Italian judgment and to appeal against its judgment. They also disputed the Italian court’s jurisdiction, claiming it was based solely on the plaintiff’s registered office.
The Supreme Court held that, although recognition between the Member States of the European Union is generally governed by the Brussels I Regulation (1), the present case had to be assessed under the ZMZPP (2), because the recognition decision was taken before 1 May 2004, when European Union law became part of the Slovenian legal order. Applying Articles 97 and 98 of the ZMZPP, the Court found that only a timely objection could have excluded the international jurisdiction of the Italian courts; here, the defendant raised that objection only on appeal, not in the objection to recognition, and thus out of time. The issue concerned the jurisdiction of the Italian court, not a lack of international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts.
As to the claimed lack of service/participation, the Supreme Court stressed that the burden of proof lay with the defendant to establish facts preventing recognition. In particular, the defendant should have disproved the official endorsement (certificate) on the foreign judgment stating that ‘no appeal was lodged within the statutory time-limit’, or at least shown that they had challenged that endorsement before the Italian court (for example, by requesting service of the judgment or proof of service). No such evidence was provided. Under Articles 94 to 103 of the ZMZPP, review of a foreign judgment is limited to the expressly enumerated grounds, which primarily protect the procedural rights of the party against whom the judgment is invoked; no such ground was made out.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance dismissing the objection to recognition.
(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 mednarodnem zasebnem pravu in postopku (Private International Law and Procedure Act).