Tartu Ringkonnakohus; 2018-09-19; 2-18-4182/11
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TRRK:2018:2.18.4182.13154
Date: 2018-09-19
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82018EE0919(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An Estonian company (hereinafter the ‘plaintiff’) brought an action against a company domiciled in Austria (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking a declaration of the absence of a sales contract  as well as any debt between the parties (as a consequence of the defendant's claim for the repayment of a debt arising from an alleged sales contract).
The defendant provided to the Viru Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) a statement that the place of performance of the contract in question was in Austria and that the parties had no other agreement conferring jurisdiction. Based on the defendant’s statement, the Court of First Instance cited Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), declared a lack of its jurisdiction to hear the case and dismissed the action.
The plaintiff appealed to the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging that the Court of First Instance (i) erroneously cited the Brussels I Regulation instead of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), (ii) wrongly assessed the question of place of performance as the defendant was obliged to deliver the goods to the location in Estonia and that (iii) Article 4(1)(a) of the Rome I Regulation (3) also suggests that this case shall fall within Estonian jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal recalled that with regards to the actions for a negative declaration, as in the present case, the court must always assess, from its own motion, the existence of relevant legal interest of the plaintiff in establishing the existence of an obligation in a situation where the plaintiff itself is not party to the alleged obligation. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Court of First Instance declared the lack of jurisdiction prematurely. The Court of First Instance should have asked the defendant to submit written evidence explaining the conclusion and performance of the alleged sales contract as well as the basis on which the defendant claims the repayment.
The Court of Appeal held that a lack of information makes it impossible to reliably assess whether the action shall be granted or dismissed. Therefore, the Court of Appeal annulled the first instance decision and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new hearing concerning the acceptance of the action.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) 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.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).