Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije; 2017-12-13; III Ips 66/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2017:III.IPS.66.2017
Date: 2017-12-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82017SI1213(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A Slovenian company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) concluded two contracts on the exclusive rights to sell products of an Italian company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Both contracts contained an agreement conferring jurisdiction in favour of the courts of Milan, Italy. The defendant applied for the enforcement of unpaid invoices, but the plaintiff objected the enforcement, which caused its annulment. Subsequently, the plaintiff lodged a counterclaim in which it sought compensation for the damage allegedly caused as a result of the ending of the business cooperation. This counterclaim is the subject of the present case. The defendant raised an objection alleging the lack of jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts referring to the agreement on jurisdiction contained in the business contracts.
The Slovenian Court of First Instance dismissed the objection of lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal later upheld such decision. The courts cited Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘If the parties, regardless of their domicile, have agreed that a court or the courts of a Member State are to have jurisdiction … that court or those courts shall have jurisdiction, unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State’. Both courts concluded that the counterclaim filed by the plaintiff relates to the contracts between the parties as the present case arose as a consequence of a breach of contractual obligations, which means that the exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in the contracts in the favour of the Italian court excludes the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts.
The defendant brought the case before the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) alleging a material breach of the provisions of civil procedure and a misapplication of substantive law. The Supreme Court held that the counterclaim must be assessed as whether it could be subsumed under the matters arising from the contracts between the parties. However, the reasoning of the lower court was considered to be correct.
The Supreme Court stated that the jurisdiction shall be assessed on the information contained in the application and on the facts known to the court. The defendant may raise its objection against the jurisdiction in its defence at the latest. The Supreme Court found no breaches of procedural rules in the proceedings in the lower courts as both parties were allowed to pursue their procedural rights, nor any contradictory statements of the lower courts. The fact that the two actions were not heard in the same proceedings or brought together in a single hearing was not held as erroneous, as merging the proceedings is simply a possibility for the court, not an obligation.
All grounds of appeal provided by the defendant were held unfounded.
(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.