Introduction

In the civil case III Cp 144/2025, the Ljubljana Higher Court reaffirmed the importance of the rule of jurisdiction stability (perpetuatio fori), which stipulates that changes in circumstances during the proceedings do not affect the jurisdiction of the court as it was at the time of filing the lawsuit. This case raises significant procedural issues, particularly regarding the objection to subject-matter jurisdiction and the efficiency of judicial proceedings.

Core of the Judicial Decision – Ljubljana Higher Court

The Higher Court confirmed in this case that if the defendant does not object to jurisdiction in the response to the lawsuit, the rule of jurisdiction stability (perpetuatio fori) applies. This means that the court that was competent at the time of filing the lawsuit remains competent even if circumstances that determine its jurisdiction change later. This rule derives from the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP) and, following the amendment ZPP-E, also applies to the relationship between district and circuit courts.

Ruling of the Judgment – Ljubljana Higher Court

I. The appeal is dismissed, and the contested decision is upheld.

II. The decision on the costs of the appeal proceedings is reserved for the final judgment.

Reasoning of the Judicial Decision – Ljubljana Higher Court

1. Proceedings Before the First-Instance Court

In the appeal, the defendant argued that the first-instance court wrongly dismissed its objection to subject-matter jurisdiction, claiming that the value of the disputed subject matter changed during the proceedings and exceeded the threshold for the jurisdiction of the district court. However, the first-instance court found that the lawsuit was initially filed with a stated disputed subject matter value of EUR 8,000 and that the defendant did not object to jurisdiction in its response to the lawsuit.

2. Defendant’s Arguments in the Appeal

The defendant lodged an appeal on all grounds, proposing that the ruling be changed to uphold the objection to subject-matter jurisdiction. It emphasized that the actual value of the disputed subject matter could only be determined at the first hearing on the merits, making its objection timely.

3. Position of the Higher Court

The Higher Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded and affirmed the ruling of the first-instance court, emphasizing that:

• The court examines subject-matter jurisdiction ex officio only during the preliminary review of the lawsuit;
• The defendant must raise an objection to subject-matter jurisdiction no later than in its response to the lawsuit;
• Later changes in the value of the disputed subject matter cannot affect jurisdiction once it has been established (perpetuatio fori).

The Higher Court further pointed out that accepting the defendant’s argumentation would lead to legal uncertainty and potential procedural delays, which contradicts the principle of procedural economy.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Ljubljana Higher Court III Cp 144/2025 confirms that the perpetuatio fori rule is not merely a formal procedural rule but serves as a key mechanism for ensuring legal certainty and expediting proceedings. Parties must be mindful to assert procedural objections in a timely manner, as subsequent changes in circumstances cannot affect already established jurisdiction. This prevents potential procedural maneuvering and ensures the stability of judicial proceedings.

* Finding yourself in need of legal services in Slovenia and looking for a law firm in Ljubljana, consider contacting us using our contact details as published on our web page. A qualified law firm can provide you with legal advice and representation – helping you navigate the complexities of Slovenian law and ensuring that your rights are protected. You can find more information on legal acts in Slovenia on the official pages of the Slovenian government. More legal topics can be found on our law firm publications page.