Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije; 2011-04-07; Cp 5/2011 in Cp 6/2011
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSRS:2011:CP.5.2011.A
Date: 2011-04-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82011SI0407(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Vrhovno sodišče (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), concerns the procedural requirements for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.
The plaintiff, relying on the Brussels I Regulation (1), requested the Court of First Instance to declare enforceable in Slovenia an Austrian default judgment. The Court of First Instance initially recognised the judgment’s legal validity. The defendant lodged an objection against this recognition, but the plaintiff pointed out that under the Brussels I Regulation, it is not necessary for the court to recognise the validity of a judgment from another Member State; instead, upon request, the court merely declares the foreign decision enforceable. The plaintiff simultaneously requested a supplementary decision to that effect. The Court of First Instance granted the proposal and supplemented its earlier decision by declaring the Austrian judgment enforceable in Slovenia.
The defendant then lodged an objection to the supplementary decision, claiming that he had not been properly served with the statement of claim. The Court of First Instance upheld this objection, annulled both its initial and supplementary decisions, and rejected the plaintiff’s request for recognition and enforcement.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the Austrian default judgment had been properly served on the defendant.
The Supreme Court recalled that, under the Brussels I Regulation, a judgment given in a Member State takes effect automatically if it fulfils the conditions for recognition. To simplify the procedure, a system of standard forms was established (Articles 54 and 58 in conjunction with Annex V to the Regulation). According to Article 45, a court may refuse to declare a judgment enforceable only on one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35 of the Regulation.
The Court of First Instance correctly found that the standard-form certificate attached to the application was incomplete, as it lacked the date on which the judgment was served on the defendant. However, the Supreme Court held that rejecting the application solely because of this deficiency was incorrect. According to Article 55 of the Brussels I Regulation, ‘if the certificate referred to in Article 54 is not produced, the court […] may specify a time for its production or accept an equivalent document or, if it considers that it has sufficient information before it, dispense with its production’. The Supreme Court ruled that, when the certificate is incomplete as to essential information, the court must proceed in accordance with this provision and return the application to the plaintiff to supplement and resubmit it.
Consequently, the Supreme Court partially upheld the plaintiff’s appeal, annulled the contested decision rejecting the proposal for a declaration of enforceability, and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings.
(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.