Harju Maakohus; 2018-11-16; 2-18-9908/8
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:HMK:2018:2.18.9908.25580
Date: 2018-11-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82018EE1116(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An Estonian company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against a natural person domiciled in foreign country (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking damages arising from a contract on the sale and installation of a wooden house concluded between the parties.
The contract contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Estonian courts. The plaintiff filled the action with the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), but the defendant objected and alleged a lack of jurisdiction of the Estonian courts. The defendant declared that he was a consumer and invoked Article 18(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled’. As the defendant was domiciled abroad, the jurisdiction cannot lie with the Estonian courts. On the contrary, the plaintiff claimed that the contract for the construction of the wooden house cannot be understood as a consumer contract and therefore the jurisdiction clause applies.
The Court of First Instance held that the contract was concluded with the defendant as a natural person not pursuing in the contract any commercial or professional activities. In such case, the jurisdiction clause must be declared void. Moreover, in this situation, the defendant must be understood as the weaker party to the contract. The Court of First Instance invoked the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the principles of the Brussels I Regulation and recalled that the weaker party should be protected by the rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules. Thus, applying the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the jurisdiction lies with the courts of defendant’s domicile.
The Court of First Instance declared the lack of its jurisdiction and dismissed the action.
(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.