Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2025-05-21; III Cp 523/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2025:III.CP.523.2025
Date: 2025-05-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI0521(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in a dispute arising from a loan agreement connected with immovable property in Serbia.
The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant based on a loan agreement under which the defendant had undertaken to repay a sum of money with interest. The agreement further provided that, if that obligation was not performed, apartments in Serbia were to be transferred to the plaintiff. The Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) held, on the basis of Article 52 of the ZMZPP (1), that it had international jurisdiction to hear the case.
The defendant appealed, arguing that the operative part of the first-instance decision was inconsistent with its reasoning, since it referred to ‘international’ jurisdiction although the Court of First Instance had found that the dispute lacked an international element. He further submitted that the parties had validly agreed on the jurisdiction of the Serbian courts, relying on the Brussels I Regulation (2), the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (3), the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (4) and the Rome Convention (5).
The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal only insofar as it corrected the wording of the operative part by deleting the word ‘international’. It agreed that the dispute did not contain an international element, since both parties were Slovenian nationals domiciled in Slovenia and the place of performance was also in Slovenia.
As regards the defendant’s reliance on European Union and international instruments, the Court of Appeal held that Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation and Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) permit prorogation only in favour of the courts of a Member State. Since Serbia is not a Member State, those provisions could not support a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Serbian courts. The Court of Appeal further held that the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements was inapplicable because Serbia was not a Contracting Party and the Convention allows the choice only of the courts of Contracting States. It also explained that the Rome Convention and Rome I Regulation (6) concern the law applicable to contractual obligations, not jurisdiction, and were therefore irrelevant at that stage of the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal also rejected the argument that the dispute concerned rights in rem in immovable property in Serbia. It held that, under the loan agreement, the defendant’s primary obligation was to repay the borrowed money, whereas the transfer of apartments was envisaged only if that obligation was not performed.
Accordingly, apart from the correction to the wording of the operative part, the Court of Appeal upheld the conclusion that the Slovenian courts had jurisdiction to hear the claim.
(1) Zakon o mednarodnem zasebnem pravu in postopku (Private International Law and Procedure Act).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(3) 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 (recast).
(4) Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.
(5) Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980.
(6) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).