Tallinna Ringkonnakohus; 2021-08-09; 2-21-7519/9
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TLRK:2021:2.21.7519.14721
Date: 2021-08-09
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82021EE0809(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in a credit-related dispute solved by the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
A bank concluded a credit contract with a natural person domiciled in Spain (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), which the bank later terminated due to the defendant’s failure to comply with its conditions. Subsequently, the bank assigned the claim to a debt collection company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), which applied before the Viru Maakohus (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance in Viru’) for payment of the outstanding debt. The plaintiff was unable to determine the defendant’s place of residence. However, in the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) of the loan contract, the parties agreed that in case the defendant moves abroad, or his place of residence is unknown, the bank shall bring the case before the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance in Harju’).
The Court of First Instance in Viru refused to admit the action and transferred the case to the Court of First Instance in Harju.
The Court of First Instance in Harju found that the defendant entered the loan contract as a consumer. The court invoked Article 18(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), which provides that ‘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’. The agreement conferring jurisdiction contained in the standard GTC was considered the court null and void under Article 106(1)(1) of the TsMS (2) as the agreement did not meet the requirements laid down both by the national law and Article 19 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). As the defendant was domiciled abroad and did not respond to the court’s demand about whether he agreed to be heard by the Estonian court, the Court of First Instance in Harju dismissed the action as inadmissible due to a lack of jurisdiction of the Estonian courts.
The case proceeded to the Court of Appeal following the plaintiff’s appeal alleging an erroneous assessment of the agreement on jurisdiction contained in the GTC of the credit contract. The Court of Appeal confirmed the defendant’s foreign domicile and his consumer status. The GTC clause regarding the jurisdiction of the Estonian courts must be deemed null and void because its wording does not fulfil the conditions requested by Article 104 of the TsMS. Therefore, neither can Article 19(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) justify the validity of the clause, as suggested by the plaintiff in his appeal.
The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance conclusions. Since the defendant did not respond to the service of the documents, Article 26(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is also not applicable to establish the jurisdiction of the Estonian courts.
The appeal was dismissed as unfounded.
(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.
(2) Tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik (Code of Civil Procedure).