Županijski sud u Zadru; 2015-07-24; B. R., Z. R.; R. G.; 5 Gž-1824/14-2
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:HR:ZSZD:2015:3
Date: 2015-07-24
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Croatia

82015HR0724(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The Županijski sud u Zadru (hereinafter: County Court in Zadar) issued a decision in case number Gž-1824/15 of 24 July 2015, by which it accepted an appeal of the first plaintiff B. R. and the second plaintiff Z. R., both from V., the Republic of Croatia, which is a civil case against the defendant R. G. from the Republic of Austria, G. 139, filed in order to declare the enforcement of a lien on a real property inadmissible and to delete the Land Registry record. In the same decision, the County Court in Zadar reversed the decision of the Općinski sud u Zadru (hereinafter: Municipal Court in Zadar), Stalna služba u Pagu (hereinafter: Permanent attendance in Pag) issued in case number P-1545/15 of 15 May 2015, and the defendant's objection to the absolute lack of jurisdiction was rejected as inadmissible. In its first instance decision, the court declined its jurisdiction and rejected the claim, while the court of appeal reversed the contested decision, rejected the defendant's objection to the absolute lack of jurisdiction and referred the case back to the first instance court to continue proceedings. In fact, contrary to the opinion of the court of the first instance and based on the Article 58(3) of the Zakon o parničnom postupku, the court of appeal held that in proceedings against a person who has no general territorial jurisdiction in the Republic of Croatia but has obligations which have to be fulfilled in the Republic of Croatia, the claim shall be filed at a court on whose territory this obligation is to be fulfilled. In this exact case, it is the Municipal court in Zadar, Permanent attendance in Pag, which is the only court competent to approve a claim for deletion of ownership in land register. The court of appeal also held that the jurisdiction of the national court is based on the provisions of Articles 5(1) and 6(4) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ("Brussels I Regulation"), because this case is related to a contractual relationship between the parties and a claim that can be linked to defendant's property right, and was filed at the court in the state where the property is actually situated.