Riigikohus; 2021-10-20; 2-20-715/32
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:RK:2021:2.20.715.18753
Date: 2021-10-20
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82021EE1020(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of recognition and enforcement of a foreign decision brought before the Riigikohus (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
The Russian customs office (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) requested the Viru Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to recognize and enforce a decision of the Russian arbitral court in Estonia. According to the given decision, an Estonian limited liability company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) had to compensate the Russian State for material damage.
The Court of First Instance relied on the bilateral Legal Assistance Agreement (LAA) between Estonia and Russia. It held that all the conditions for recognition and enforcement laid down by this agreement were fulfilled. Therefore, the plaintiff’s application was granted, and the foreign decision was recognised and declared enforceable in Estonia. The defendant’s objection that the claim was already time-barred was rejected as the LAA does not provide for the review of a limitation objection in recognition and enforcement proceedings.
The defendant appealed to the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), alleging an erroneous omission to apply the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and a wrong disregard of the plea of limitation of the claim. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance conclusion and dismissed the appeal. The Court of First Instance correctly applied the LLA and assessed the application, given all its provisions.
In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the defendant pointed out that the lower courts disregarded the argument that the judgment was no longer enforceable in Russia, as the entitlement was already time-barred. Therefore, it cannot be declared enforceable in Estonia either, as it would be manifestly contrary to the general principles of Estonian public policy.
The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly applied the LLA since neither the Brussels I Regulation (recast) nor the national TsMS (2) apply to the current case. In recognition and enforcement proceedings under the LLA, the courts must assess whether the formal requirements for recognition and enforcement have been met and whether there are grounds for refusing such requests. The lower courts correctly held no grounds for rejecting the plaintiff’s action. The time-limit expiry for judgment enforcement in Russia is not grounds for refusing the request. The Supreme Court recalled that after a foreign decision becomes enforceable in Estonia, the defendant may, if necessary, bring an action for a declaration that enforcement is inadmissible due to the expiry of the time limit for enforcement in compliance with Article 221 of the TMS (3).
Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conclusions of the lower courts.
(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.
(2) Tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik (Code of Civil Procedure).
(3) Täitemenetluse seadustik (Code of Enforcement Procedure).