Tartu Maakohus; 2013-01-18; 2-13-2520/2
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TMK:2013:2.13.2520.2216
Date: 2013-01-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Estonia

82013EE0118(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An employment agency domiciled in Estonia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) signed an employment contract with an Estonian natural person (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) in favour of an employer domiciled in Norway. The contract later resulted in a labour dispute resolved by an order of the Estonian Labour Inspectorate, in which the defendant was granted an amount of ca. EUR 6000. The defendant forwarded the order to the bailiff for its enforcement.
The employer disagreed with the order and applied before the Norwegian court seeking to grant a right not to pay the amount ordered. However, the proceedings in Norway could continue only after and if the enforcement procedure in Estonia would be stayed.
The plaintiff applied to the Tartu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking to stay the Estonian enforcement proceedings. The Court of First Instance invoked Article 31 of the new Lugano Convention (1), according to which ‘application may be made to the courts of a State bound by this Convention for such provisional, including protective, measures as may be available under the law of that State, even if, under this Convention, the courts of another State bound by this Convention have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter.’ The Court of First Instance further cited national law, under which enforcement may be stopped where the enforcement order was challenged by an action. It was proven that the plaintiff had already challenged the order of the Labour Inspectorate before the Estonian courts, but the action was dismissed both at first instance (by the Harju Maakohus) and at appeal instance (by the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus). Therefore, the order of the Labour Inspectorate had already entered into force and the enforcement procedure had commenced legally. Moreover, the employer applied in Norway for essentially the same dispute.
Following the ascertained circumstances, the Court of First Instance found no reason to stay the enforcement proceedings and the application was dismissed.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.