Tartu Maakohus; 0016-04-25; 2-15-125718/14
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TMK:2016:2.15.125718.21496
Date: 2016-04-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Estonia

82016EE0425(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case deals with a question of the international jurisdiction of the Estonian courts in a dispute between a company domiciled in Estonia (hereinafter ’the plaintiff’), which was enforcing the debt of a natural person (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The debt was incurred after the defendant failed to pay his obligations arising from a contract with an Estonian telecommunication company for the provision of its services.
The request was finally assessed by the Tartu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) (the proceedings were commenced in the Pärnu Maakohus, but the case was transferred).
The Court of First Instance was unable to ascertain defendant’s current address in Estonia, neither from the population register, land register nor from the commercial register. In a phone call with the court, the defendant himself alleged that he lived and worked in Norway. This was confirmed also by the Norwegian authorities upon the request of the Court of First Instance. On the grounds of these findings the Court of First Instance concluded that defendant’s current domicile was in Norway. Since the contract, under which the debt was incurred, concerned provision of services to a natural person as a final recipient, the defendant was considered to be a consumer.
The Court of First Instance subsumed the case under Chapter 2 Section 4 of the new Lugano Convention (1) and cited Article 16(2) of the Convention, according to which ‘proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the consumer is domiciled’. There was neither an agreement conferring the jurisdiction (Article 17 of the new Lugano Convention) nor did the defendant appear before the Court of First Instance (Article 24 of the new Lugano Convention).
Based on the findings, the Court of First Instance held the lack of jurisdiction of the Estonian courts and dismissed the plaintiff’s request.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.