Tartu Ringkonnakohtu tsiviilkolleegium; 2025-11-10; 2-25-7898/9
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TRRK:2025:2.25.7898.16613
Date: 2025-11-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82025EE1110(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned international jurisdiction in a consumer dispute under the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1).
The Aktiva Finance Group OÜ (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action before the Viru Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against C.Y. (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) for payment of sums allegedly due under instalment sale agreements originally concluded between the defendant and an Estonian company, whose claim had later been assigned to the plaintiff.
The Court of First Instance refused to admit the action, holding that the defendant was a consumer domiciled in Finland and that, under Article 18(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), proceedings could be brought against a consumer only in the courts of the Member State of the consumer’s domicile.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed that the defendant’s domicile was not in Estonia when the action was lodged. However, it held that the Court of First Instance had overlooked the requirement, derived from European Union law and the case-law of the Riigikohus (the Supreme Court), that, where jurisdiction is doubtful at the stage of admitting the action, the court should generally seek the defendant’s position. The Court of Appeal noted that jurisdiction may also arise under Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) if the defendant enters an appearance without contesting jurisdiction.
Given that the defendant was a consumer, the Court of Appeal further recalled Article 26(2), under which the court must ensure that the defendant is informed of the right to contest jurisdiction and of the consequences of entering or not entering an appearance. The Court of Appeal notified the defendant using the email address recorded in the population register and explained that the case could be determined by an Estonian court if the defendant did not contest jurisdiction. The defendant replied that he agreed to pay the principal claim. The Court of Appeal interpreted this response as indicating acceptance of Estonian jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the order refusing to admit the action, and remitted the case to the Court of First Instance for a decision on admitting the action and for further 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 (recast).