VAJE, 14.3.

2011 (MZP)

1. The insolvency proceedings of a Slovenian company are pending at the Ljubljana court. In these proceedings, a German company notified the claim as a creditor. Another creditor challenged this claim. According to the circumstances of the case, the creditor who challenged the claim was referred to the filing of an action for declaration of the non-existence of the claim. He brought the action at a Slovenian court relying on the provision of the Slovenian Private International Law and Procedure Act which determines that a Slovenian court has exclusive jurisdiction for all of the proceedings related to insolvency in Slovenia. The defendant opposed the jurisdiction of the Slovenian court and stated that the action should be brought in Germany as the place of the defendant's domicile. He alleged that the BR excludes insolvency (Art. 1) but argued that in the present case, not an insolvency but an ordinary civil litigation was at issue. Is this argumentation correct?

2. Slovenski upnik toi tujega dolnika (avstrijska druba) v Sloveniji. Pravda traja e nekaj asa. Nato avstrijski dolnik postane nesolventen in zaet je steajni postopek. Upnik pravoasno prijavi terjatev v Avstriji. Sodie, pristojno za vodenje steajnega postopka v Avstriji, naslovi na upnika sklep, da mora v 8 dneh zaeti postopek za ugotovitev obstoja prerekane terjatve. Kako naj ravna upnik, ki torej v zvezi s to terjatvijo e leta vodi postopek v Sloveniji? Ali bi bilo drugae, e pravde e ne bi zael pred zaetkom steaja? Ali se primer razlikuje, e gre za razmerje v EU ali izven nje? Ali se lahko uporabi BU? Ali Uredba 1346/2000? Ali gre za primer izkljune pristojnosti sodia drave, kjer se vodi steajni postopek ali ne?

3. A mother brought an action on behalf of her child (a Slovenian national with a domicile in Bosnia) against an alleged father (a Bosnian citizen with a domicile in Germany) with the following claims: (1) for the establishment of the defendant's parenthood status, (2) for the regulation of parental responsibilities and visitation rights and (3) for maintenance. Which source of law should the court consider in order to establish whether it has international jurisdiction?

4. A, a French national, obtained free legal aid in Slovenia for the proceeding in a Slovenian court. He was not successful in this proceeding but within one year from the finality of this litigation, his financial or material position substantially improved to the extent that he was capable of repaying costs incurred within the framework of legal aid. Pursuant to the Slovenian Legal Aid Act the Legal Aid bureau demanded the reimbursement of the costs of legal aid. As the defendant refused, Slovenia brought action before the Slovenian court. It argued that the court has jurisdiction as the defendant has certain assets in Slovenia (Art. 58 Private International Law and Procedure Act). A argued that the Regulation 44/2001 is applicable and that Slovenian court has no jurisdiction. Is he right in claiming so?

5. Na olskem izletu v avstrijskih Alpah se ponesrei uenec neke osnovne ole v Mariboru. Gre za hude telesne pokodbe. Avstrijsko kazensko sodie je odloilo o krivdi slovenskega uitelja, ki je bil odgovoren za skupino. Odloilo je tudi o odkodnini. To sodbo elijo sedaj izvriti otrokovi stari v Sloveniji. Eno izmed vpraanj je, ali gre za civilno zadevo, da bi se lahko uporabila BU. Kaj menite?

6. Razvezna toba v Sloveniji: on, hrvat, zahteva premoenje in preivnino. Ona, slovenka s prebivaliem v Sloveniji trdi, da sodie ne more utemeljiti svoje pristojnosti na BU, ker je to izven obsega njenega podroja. Ali ima prav?

7. V Griji (Delfini) se je na maturantskem izletu smrtno ponesreil dijak (padec z balkona) neke mariborske gimnazije. Ponesreenec je bil na izletu, ki ga je organizirala turistina agencija s sedeem iz Maribora. Predpostavite, da stari ponesreenca elijo odkodnino od gimnazije, uitelja, ki je spremljal dijake, turistine agencije, zavarovalnice, kjer ima turistina agencija zavarovano svojo odgovornost in od hotela v Griji, kjer se je zgodil tragini dogodek. elijo, da bi o tem presojalo eno sodie in da bi vodili eno samo pravdo, na podlagi ene ali pa ve tob. Pokuajte argumentirano odgovoriti katera sodia bi lahko bila pristojna in na kakni pravni podlagi?

8. Poglejte primer C-271/00, Baten: toka 36: To the extent to which that provision allows the public body, in a proper case, to disregard an agreement lawfully entered into between spouses or former spouses, producing binding effects between them and enforceable against third parties, it places the public body in a legal situation which derogates from the ordinary law. That is all the more so inasmuch as that provision allows the public body to disregard an agreement approved by a judicial decision and covered by the force of res judicata attaching to that decision. In those circumstances, the public body is no longer acting under rules of the civil law but under a prerogative of its own, specifically conferred on it by the legislature.