Tallinna Ringkonnakohus; 2018-06-12; 2-16-8748/58
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TLRK:2018:2.16.8748.10745
Date: 2018-06-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82018EE0612(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
An Estonian company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against a natural person domiciled in Latvia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The defendant singed a contract with the plaintiff on behalf of a Latvian company SIA. The contract contained a provision declaring the defendant responsible for a failure to fulfil the obligations by SIA. As SIA did not pay for the delivery made within the contract, the plaintiff sued the defendant to repay the debt together with interest. The contract contained also a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Estonian courts.
The action was assessed by the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), which confirmed its jurisdiction, dismissed the defendant’s objections, held him responsible for the contract and ordered him to pay the debt on behalf of SIA. The Court of First Instance concluded that the defendant, by signing the contract, voluntarily assumed the SIA obligations and thus the defendant became the debtor in this case.
The defendant appealed to the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging that there was no legal relationship directly between him and plaintiff, therefore the jurisdiction clause cannot be applied to the present case and that the Estonian courts lacked jurisdiction. He further alleged that he must be understood as a consumer under the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and therefore the case must be heard by the court of his domicile – Latvia. The defendant also alleged that the place of performance of the obligation was in Latvia, which again points to a lack of Estonian jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the jurisdiction clause cannot be applied to the present dispute since it obliged solely the plaintiff and SIA, not the person acting on behalf of the latter. However, the Court of Appeal held that the contract in question was concluded in Tallinn, Estonia and the place of its performance was the location from which it had to be loaded (also in Tallinn). Therefore, the place of performance of the contract was in Estonia, which justifies the jurisdiction of the Estonian courts.
The Court of Appeal further concluded that the defendant cannot be recognised as a consumer within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), since a person acting only as a sales representative of a purchaser cannot be recognised as customer of the seller within that regulation. However, the Court of Appeal held that the defendant can still be recognised as a consumer within national law, which provides protection also to guarantors, which in fact was the position of the defendant in this case. That national law further requires that the contract must expressly stipulate the maximum amount of the guarantor’s liability, otherwise such contract shall be invalid. As the contract in the dispute had no such clause, the contract was held not applicable to the liability of the defendant.
The appeal was granted, the first instance decision was annulled and the Court of Appeal itself decided that the action shall be dismissed.
(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.