Riigikohus; 2018-06-04; 2-16-2954/50
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:RK:2018:2.16.2954.7639
Date: 2018-06-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82018EE0604(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between former spouses concerning the ownership of a property in Estonia. The spouses, both Estonian citizens, got married in Estonia, but moved shortly after that to the United Kingdom, where they lived for almost 15 years. Their marriage was dissolved by the courts of the United Kingdom and that court also dealt with the disputed property (situated in Estonia).
One of the spouses (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied to the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking an annulment of joint ownership over the property, declaring sole ownership and seeking a new entry into Land Register reflecting such change. The plaintiff alleged that the British judgment did not deal with the question of ownership, but it only counted the value of the property for the purposes of a financial settlement between the parties. On the contrary, the defendant claimed that the British judgment had already dealt with the same property and therefore it cannot be assessed again by the Estonian courts.
The Court of First Instance cited Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and declared that the Estonian courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the property situated in Estonia. The action was upheld, and the plaintiff was declared the sole owner of the property.
The defendant appealed to the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’). The Court of Appeal annulled the first instance decision and terminated the proceedings pointing to the fact that the foreign court had already resolved the same matter between the same parties, and it cannot be assessed again.
The plaintiff filled a cassation appeal to the Riigikohus (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’). The Supreme Court held that the current claim concerning the ownership of the property was not decided by the British court, but the foreign court only counted its value for the financial purposes of the divorce. The termination of the proceedings by the Court of Appeal was held as breach of procedural principles, since the Court of Appeal did not deal with the claim properly. As the property is situated in Estonia, the British court could not resolve the issue of its ownership. This must be resolved only by the Estonian courts.
Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the cassation appeal and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings, in which the evidence and allegations of the parties must be assessed in order to ascertain whether the claim of the plaintiff to sole ownership is well founded.
(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.