Tallinna Ringkonnakohus; 2018-12-11; 2-17-129677/7
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TLRK:2018:2.17.129677.21085
Date: 2018-12-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82018EE1211(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards an application for an order for payment filled by an Estonian company (hereinafter the plaintiff) against a natural person (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) requesting the repayment of a debt of EUR 6400 arising from a consumer contract.
The defendant informed the Pärnu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) that he is now living at an address located in Riga (Latvia). The Court of First Instance noted this and further ascertained that neither did the defendant have a registered taxable income in Estonia nor was an agreement on jurisdiction between the parties concluded. The Court of First Instance 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’ and the application was dismissed because of the lack of jurisdiction of the Estonian courts.
The plaintiff appealed to the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging that the defendant deceived the Court of First Instance as no such Latvian address alleged by the defendant exists. The plaintiff believed that the defendant was in fact living in Estonia. The lack of taxable income does not relate to the domicile, but it only indicates a lack of legal income.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that the Court of First Instance correctly pointed to the application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). However, contrary to the first instance decision, the Court of Appeal held that the court must ascertain the domicile of the defendant without any doubt and the fact that the defendant declared to be living at a non-existent address must not be overlooked. If the defendant is not domiciled in Estonia, the court is always obliged to reliably justify whether the defendant is domiciled in another Member State of the European Union, which was not sufficiently proved by the Court of First Instance in this case.
The Court of Appeal annulled the first instance decision and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for the continuation of the order for payment procedure.
(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.