Tallinna Ringkonnakohus; 2019-01-30; 2-16-2954
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TLRK:2019:2.16.2954.1909
Date: 2019-01-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82019EE0130(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between former spouses, who got married in Estonia in 1999, but moved shortly after that to the United Kingdom. In 2016, one of the spouses (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action seeking the termination of the joint ownership of apartments in Tallinn (Estonia). The defendant asked the action to be dismissed citing a previous judgment issued in the United Kingdom, which the defendant believed already dissolved their marriage and which also dealt with the disputed property, so the case could not be assessed again.
The Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) declared Estonian law to be applicable in this case and pointed out that the apartments in Estonia were excluded from the consideration of the British court, since the British court held that it had no jurisdiction over the property located in Estonia. The Court of First Instance cited Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) according to which, the Estonian courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the property situated in Estonia. The Court of First Instance decided that the plaintiff shall acquire the sole ownership of the property, but the defendant must be compensated by half of the market value of the property.
The defendant appealed to the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging that the Court of First Instance erred both in consideration of the jurisdiction and in disregarding the British judgment, as that judgment did not rule over the ownership to the disputed property but only counted the value of the Estonian apartment in the settlement of the parties. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and terminated the proceedings justifying it by the fact that the same matter had been already resolved by a foreign court. The plaintiff subsequently filed a cassation appeal to the Riigikohus (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’). The Supreme Court annulled the judgment of the Court of Appeal and referred the case back for further proceedings, in which the Court of Appeal must consider the fact that the British court did not rule over the ownership.
The Court of Appeal re-assessed the case, the evidence and the allegations by the parties and concluded that the Court of First Instance failed in a proper assessment of the evidence and breached procedural rules which allows the defendant to file its counter-claim.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal partially upheld the appeal and recommended to the Court of First Instance to re-ascertain the facts of the case in a preliminary proceeding and re-assess the evidence.
(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.