Tartu Maakohus; 2011-11-04; 2-11-43820/2
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TMK:2011:2.11.43820.34450
Date: 2011-11-04
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Estonia

82011EE1104(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards an action brought by a bank registered in Estonia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) against a natural person (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), in which the plaintiff sought the repayment of a debt incurred from a credit agreement.
The action was assessed by the Tartu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant resides at an address in Tartu (Estonia), but the court was not able to serve the action there. Conversely, the defendant’s relatives claimed that the defendant lives and works permanently in Norway, and thus the Court of First Instance held that the defendant must be considered to be domiciled in Norway.
Since the defendant’s domicile was declared to be in Norway, the Court of First Instance invoked the new Lugano Convention (1), and specifically Article 3(1) which provides that ‘persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention may be sued in the courts of another State bound by this Convention only by virtue of the rules set out in Section 2 to 7 of this Title’. Because of the nature of the credit agreement, the defendant was considered to be a consumer. Article 16(2) of the Convention then stipulates that ‘proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the State bound by this Convention in which the consumer is domiciled’. No agreement conferring jurisdiction was agreed as part of the credit agreement.
Based on the findings, the Court of First Instance declared the lack of its jurisdiction to hear this case and dismissed the action.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.