Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2023-07-19; II Cp 699/2023
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2023:II.CP.699.2023
Date: 2023-07-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82023SI0719(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, heard by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the admissibility of an appeal against an order allowing an amendment of the claim and the international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in proceedings relating to the parties’ common property, part of which was situated abroad.
Prior to the present case, proceedings had been brought to determine the extent and shares of the parties’ common property, including assets in Slovenia and Croatia. Since a holiday apartment in Croatia had been sold during the proceedings, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the claim, replacing the part relating to that immovable property with a monetary claim corresponding to the proceeds.
The Court of First Instance allowed the amendment and rejected the defendant’s objection that the Slovenian courts lacked jurisdiction. The defendant appealed both orders, alleging essential procedural breaches and relying on Article 67 of the ZMZPP (1). He argued that, even after the amendment, the dispute still concerned the determination of the extent of the parties’ common property, part of which was located abroad.
The Court of Appeal held that a separate appeal against an order allowing an amendment of the claim is not permitted; such an order may be challenged only in an appeal against the final decision on the merits.
As regards jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal observed that, following the amendment, the claim relating to the Croatian immovable property had been converted into a monetary claim based on real subrogation, with the result that this specific part of the dispute was no longer treated as involving an international element. The Court of Appeal noted that the action still concerned movable property, which, according to the statement of claim, was located partly in Slovenia and partly in Croatia. However, this circumstance did not exclude Slovenian jurisdiction, since jurisdiction followed from Article 6(a), read in conjunction with Article 69(1), of Regulation concerning matrimonial property regimes (2), with the consequence that the ZMZPP did not apply.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal against the jurisdiction order as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Zakon o mednarodnem zasebnem pravu in postopku (Private International Law and Procedure Act).
(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes.