Riigikohus; 2013-09-25; 3-2-1-84-13
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:RK:2013:3.2.1.84.13.433
Date: 2013-09-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82013EE0925(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An Estonian company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against a Polish company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking the declaration of validity of a contract allegedly concluded between the parties. There was a Letter of intent concluded between the representatives of both parties concerning an intended franchise cooperation in selling the defendant’s products by the plaintiff in the Baltic countries.
The plaintiff brought the action before the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) invoking Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), as the products were intended to be sold in Baltic countries, including Estonia. The defendant objected that no final contract was concluded, therefore Article 5(1) cannot be applied to this case. The Court of First Instance confirmed the position of the defendant, invoked the general jurisdiction rule provided by Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation and declared the lack of its jurisdiction (in favour of the Polish courts).
The plaintiff appealed to the Tallinna Ringkonnakohtu (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which held that the Court of First Instance erred in it’s application of the Brussels I Regulation, as the evidence in the case and the communication between the parties reliably justified the existence of a contractual relation between them. Moreover, some products were already sold in Estonia, so the contract was already fulfilled. The existence of a contractual relation indicates that not Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation, but Article 5(1) should be applied instead. The place of performance was considered to be in Tallinn, so jurisdiction shall lie with the Estonian courts. The first instance decision was annulled.
The defendant appealed to the Riigikohus (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) seeking the annulment of the appellate decision and the confirmation of the first instance decision. The Supreme Court confirmed the findings of the Court of Appeal that the relation between the parties had a contractual basis. The parties agreed to sell the defendant’s products and the products had been already sold. The franchise contract falls within the meaning of provision of services as stipulated by the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation. The Supreme Court further held that the place of performance of the obligation in question was in Estonia, because the principal place of the plaintiff’s business was in Tallinn. The jurisdiction of the Estonian court was therefore justified.
The appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed, the findings of the Court of Appeal were upheld, and the case was referred to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings.
(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.