Tallinna Ringkonnakohus; 2015-12-15; 2-14-60723/21
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TLRK:2015:2.14.60723.30066
Date: 2015-12-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Estonia

82015EE1215(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between a producer domiciled in Estonia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and a client company domiciled in Norway (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), which entered into an oral contract to produce special metal products. The dispute concerned an unpaid part of the delivery and a late payment.
The plaintiff filed the action claiming the repayment of the debt with the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) alleging that place of performance of the contract was in Estonia. Conversely, the defendant alleged that the place of performance was in Norway and therefore the Estonian courts lack the jurisdiction to decide on the case. Both parties provided several arguments in support of their claims: the plaintiff mainly alleged that the products were manufactured and finished in Estonia and the transport to Norway was carried out by a third party, the defendant mainly alleged that the delivery of the products to Norway was part of the contracted service.
The Court of First Instance deemed it to be confirmed that the parties agreed to deliver the goods to Norway. As the relationship included a company from Norway, the jurisdiction dispute must be assessed under the new Lugano Convention (1). The Court of First Instance referred to Article 5 of this Convention and used the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-381/08 (2) to declare the relationship between the parties as a ‘contract for the sale of goods’. Pursuant to first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of the new Lugano Convention, ‘the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be … the place in a State bound by this Convention where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered’. The Court of First Instance concluded that the contract was performed in Norway, declared the lack of jurisdiction of the Estonian courts and dismissed the action.
The plaintiff appealed to the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging that the Court of First Instance erroneously applied the CJEU’s case-law and overlooked other interpretations in cited CJEU’s judgments which would lead to conclusion that the contract shall be classified as ‘contract for the provision of services’ and therefore finally performed in Estonia (first indent of Article 5(1)(b) of the new Lugano Convention).
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the Court of First Instance correctly referred to the new Lugano Convention and the judgment in Case C-381/08. This CJEU’s judgment provides several interpretational guidance rules and the Court of Appeal confirmed the position of the plaintiff that the contract shall be rather classified as a ‘contract for the provision of services’ (based on point 42 of referred CJEU’s judgment). However, this fact had no influence on the place of performance. It was indisputable that there was an agreement between the parties that the goods shall be delivered to Norway. Only there was the defendant able to take over the goods and check their final quality. It was not relevant who organized and paid for the transport. The place of performance of the contract was therefore in Norway.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first instance conclusion.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Judgment of the Cour of Justice of 25 February 2010, Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems Srl., C-381/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:90.