Vaasan hovioikeus; 2015-10-01; A, B; VaaHO:2015:9
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FI:VaaHO:2015:9
Date: 2015-10-01
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Finland

82015FI1001(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
„A” (hereinafter „the plaintiff”) applied to the Finnish District Court requesting the recognition and enforcement of a judgment issued by an Estonian court against B (hereinafter “the defendant”).
The District Court, invoking Articles 38, 41 and 42 of the Brussels I Regulation (1), recognised the submitted foreign judgment and declared its enforceability.
The defendant appealed this decision requesting that it be annulled and that the application for recognition and enforcement be rejected. In the appeal, the defendant confirmed that he had provided a written answer to the Estonian court, however, he was not summoned to two court sessions nor had he been given any information that the sessions were to be held. As a consequence, the sessions were held in his absence. The defendant claimed the granting of recognition to be violation of Article 34 of the Brussels I Regulation, according to which “a judgment shall not be recognised (1) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought; (2) where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so”.
The Court of Appeal ascertained that the Estonian court had proceeded by virtue of Article 414 of Estonian Tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik (“Code of Civil Procedure”), according to which, upon absence of a party from a court session, the court may adjudicate on the merits of a matter if the circumstances which constitute the cause of the action have been, in the opinion of the court, ascertained to a sufficient extent in order to make such judgment. Moreover, the court may adjudicate on the merits of the matter in the absence of a party even if the party has provided a good reason for his or her failure to appear in the court session provided that the party has consented to written proceedings. Therefore, the Estonian court did not consider the absence of the defendant, who consented to written proceedings, as an objection to delivery of the judgment. On the contrary, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had option to provide his oral statements and presentation of evidence and that the defendant had no option to challenge them, which he regarded to be an unfair trial and a breach of his right of defence.
The Court of Appeal stated that the case must be considered with regard to Article 34 of the Brussels I Regulation, but it cannot review the foreign judgment as to its substance as this is prohibited by Article 36.
The Court of Appeal held that there was no breach of Article 34(2), because the defendant, admitting that he has provided a written answer to Estonian court, was provided with the documents in sufficient time.
Regarding the breach of Article 34(1), the Court of Appeal pointed to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, especially to the judgment in case C-7/98 (2), according to which “recourse to the public-policy clause must be regarded as being possible in exceptional cases” and it could be “envisaged only where recognition or enforcement of the judgment delivered in another State would be at variance to an unacceptable degree with the legal order of the State in which enforcement is sought inasmuch as it infringes a fundamental principle”.
The Court of Appeal also stated that Finnish law allows the proceedings to be held in the absence of one of the parties, if legal conditions for such action would be satisfied. The defendant did not dispute that he provided a written answer to the Estonian court, nor did he allege that any new facts or findings were provided at those two sessions that he missed. As was previously confirmed by Estonian appellate instances, the proceedings were held in full compliance with Estonian law. The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that the recognition and enforcement cannot be considered as being manifest contrary to Finnish public policy.
Based on the aforementioned, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision made by the District Court.
(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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 28 March 2000, Dieter Krombach v André Bamberski, C-7/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:164.