Pärnu Maakohus Pärnu kohtumaja Rüütli tänaval; 2025-04-03; 2-23-132455/11
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:PMK:2025:2.23.132455.6878
Date: 2025-04-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82025EE0430(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Pärnu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), concerned international jurisdiction in consumer credit proceedings under the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1).
The OÜ GS Core (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), as assignee of a claim originally arising under an unsecured consumer loan agreement concluded between Bondora AS and R. V. (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), sought payment of the principal sum and ancillary claims (interest and default interest).
The matter initially proceeded as an order for payment procedure, but service on the defendant was unsuccessful. The case was therefore transferred to ordinary civil proceedings. The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s last-known residence in Estonia and submitted that the claim should be heard in Estonia.
The Court of First Instance admitted the action and invited the defendant to state his habitual residence and whether he agreed to the case being heard by an Estonian court. The Court warned that, if the defendant did not appear or did not respond, it could be required under Article 28(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) to declare of its own motion that it lacked jurisdiction. The defendant did not submit any response and did not indicate consent to Estonian jurisdiction.
On the merits of jurisdiction, the Court of First Instance held that the dispute concerned a consumer contract within Article 17(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and that, under Article 18(2), proceedings could be brought against a consumer only in the courts of the Member State of the consumer’s domicile, unless a valid consumer jurisdiction agreement existed under Article 19. The Court found that none of the Article 19 exceptions applied.
Although the loan agreement contained a standard-term jurisdiction clause referring disputes to an Estonian court, the Court held that clause to be invalid. It considered the clause unclear and incapable of being applied independently, and held that it could not be interpreted against the consumer. The Court also held that Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) was inapplicable, since the defendant had not appeared and the defendant’s failure to respond could not be treated as tacit acceptance of jurisdiction.
Having regard to the evidence (including Estonian population register data and earlier successful service on the defendant in Finland in other proceedings), the Court of First Instance found that the defendant’s domicile was in Finland. It therefore concluded that the Estonian courts lacked international jurisdiction and did not examine the claim.
(1) 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).