Tallinna Ringkonnakohus; 2021-05-07; 2-20-2709/17
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TLRK:2021:2.20.2709.15067
Date: 2021-05-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82021EE0507(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in a consumer dispute brought before the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
A receivables management company domiciled in Estonia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) requested the Pärnu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to issue a payment order against a natural person (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) based on unpaid debt.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the action on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction of the Estonian courts. The documents served to the defendant’s address in Estonia were returned as undelivered. The court found no other place of the defendant’s residence in Estonia and the defendant, in a phone conversation with the court, stated that his domicile was in Finland. The defendant did not even acknowledge receipt of the court documents sent to his email address.
The Court of First Instance invoked national law as well as Article 4(1) and Article 62(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and concluded that the defendant does not have his habitual residence in Estonia and that the case is subject to the jurisdiction of the Finnish courts.
In its appeal, the plaintiff argued that the defendant still had a link to Estonia and that, pursuant to TsÜS (2) and TsMS (3), a person may have a second domicile in addition to the domicile entered in the population register.
The Court of Appeal found that the first instance conclusion is lawful and well-founded, and the arguments raised in the appeal do not constitute grounds for annulling it. The Court of First Instance’s enquiries reliably proved that the defendant’s domicile at the time of filing the action was Finland, as confirmed by both the Estonian and Finnish population registers. The Court of Appeal also cited Article 18(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). It confirmed that the jurisdiction over the defendant, identified as a consumer, lies with the Finnish courts. Nor can the jurisdiction of the Estonian courts be established through Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) since the defendant did not respond to the summons and, consequently, must be regarded as he did not enter an appearance before the court.
Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the Court of First Instance’s decision was upheld.
(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) Tsiviilseadustiku üldosa seadus (General Part of the Civil Code).
(3) Tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik (Code of Civil Procedure).