Tartu Ringkonnakohus; 2021-08-05; 2-20-14526/25
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TRRK:2021:2.20.14526.14952
Date: 2021-08-05
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82021EE0805(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards the determination of international jurisdiction and the question of apportionment of costs of proceedings resolved by the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
An Estonian national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied to the Tartu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for determination of jurisdiction in the case against another Estonian national (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) and Finnish national (hereinafter ‘defendant2’). The plaintiff, alleging that defendant 2 breached an obligation arising from a partnership agreement, intended to bring an action to dissolve the partnership and obtain damages. In this case, the plaintiff first applied to determine which court shall hear the main proceedings.
Defendant 1 agreed to the jurisdiction of the Estonian courts under Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). Defendant 2 submitted that the potential dispute should be governed by Finnish law and be subject to the jurisdiction of the Finnish courts under Article 4 of the Rome I Regulation (2) or Article 4(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) following his Finnish domicile.
The Court of First Instance ruled that the action against defendants 1 and 2 is subject to the jurisdiction of the Estonian courts under Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and decided that the plaintiff shall bear the costs.
The plaintiff appealed the part relating to the apportioning of the costs to the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff alleged that the obligation to pay the expenses by the successful party is unreasonable. Conversely, since defendant 2 was not successful in his claim that Finnish law shall govern the dispute, it should be defendant 2 who should bear the costs of the first instance proceedings.
The Court of Appeal cited several provisions of the TsMS (3) and held that the Court of First Instance misapplied Article 172(1) of the TsMS concerning the procedural expenses in non-contentious proceedings. This provision confers on the court broad discretion in the apportionment of costs, but the Court of First Instance has not exercised that discretion properly. The allocation of the costs shall follow the fairness. However, the view of the plaintiff that the costs shall be borne by defendant 2 would not be fair either. The conclusion that the case will be held before the courts of Estonia instead of the courts of Finland cannot be considered as defendant’s 2 loss of the case since the merit of the dispute will be decided only by the main hearing.
The Court of Appeal decided to amend the first instance order in such a way that the parties of the proceedings shall bear their own costs of the proceedings.
(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) 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).
(3) Tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik (Code of Civil Procedure).