Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2014-07-02; II Ip 2486/2014
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2014:II.IP.2486.2014
Date: 2014-07-02
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82014SI0702(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerns a request to continue enforcement proceedings by introducing an additional enforcement measure.
The creditors (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) obtained an enforcement order from the Okrajno sodišče v Cerknici (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) based on a final Slovenian judgment already partly enforced domestically. However, the seized assets did not satisfy the plaintiffs’ claims. They therefore requested that the Court of First Instance continue the enforcement proceedings by adopting a new enforcement measure: the attachment and transfer of funds held by the debtor (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) in a bank account in Austria. The Court of First Instance declared that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on this request and dismissed it.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal. While they agreed that the case was governed by the Brussels I Regulation (1), they argued that the lower court had misinterpreted its provisions. They pointed out that the Court of First Instance had already issued an enforcement order on the basis of a final Slovenian judgment and had taken certain enforcement steps, which had proved insufficient to satisfy the claim. Full repayment could only be achieved by enforcing against the additional asset located abroad.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the Court of First Instance had correctly applied the Brussels I Regulation. According to Article 22(5), in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile, lies with ‘the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced‘. This means that the Austrian courts have exclusive jurisdiction to authorise and carry out the attachment of funds in the defendant’s Austrian bank account. Any other decision would amount to an impermissible interference with the jurisdiction and sovereignty of another Member State.
The Court of Appeal further held that the Court of First Instance had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the Brussels I Regulation and was not obliged to instruct the plaintiffs, who were represented by a lawyer, on how to pursue enforcement against the defendant’s assets abroad, as they claimed in their appeal.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of the Court of First Instance as correct and lawful.
(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.