Tallinna Ringkonnakohus; 2018-01-29; 2-17-13029/9
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TLRK:2018:2.17.13029.6921
Date: 2018-01-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82018EE0129(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards an action brought by an Estonian company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) against a natural person domiciled in Latvia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The action concerned an unpaid debt arising from a contract of suretyship, which also contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the Estonian courts.
The action was filed with Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). Despite the jurisdiction clause, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action, arguing a lack of jurisdiction. The Court of First Instance cited the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and pointed to the special status of the defendant — a consumer domiciled in another Member State of the European Union.
The plaintiff complained against the dismissal, alleging that the defendant cannot be understood as a consumer within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), as Article 17(1) of this Regulation provides that it applies to contracts ‘concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession’. This cannot be applied to the defendant as he, although being a natural person, represented a company and has an economic interest equal to the economic interest of those companies. The complaint was rejected and the case was forwarded to the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) for further proceedings.
Contrary to the first instance decision, the Court of Appeal considered that the defendant cannot be simply understood as a consumer within the meaning of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) without further analysis of the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The concept of ‘consumer’ must also be assessed in accordance with previous case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Court of First Instance erred in assessing all of the essential facts relevant for the decision and therefore such a decision must be annulled. The Court of Appeal referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new hearing, in which it must be reliably established whether the defendant falls under the concept of a consumer as provided by the Brussels I Regulation (recast) or not.
(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.