Tallinna Ringkonnakohus; 2015-05-20; 2-14-61566
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TLRK:2015:2.14.61566.12870
Date: 2015-05-20
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Estonia

82015EE0520(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a proceeding for the recognition and enforcement of a Norwegian judgment in the Republic of Estonia.
The plaintiff, invoking the new Lugano Convention (1), applied for recognition and enforcement before the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). The Court of First Instance cited Article 33(1) of the Convention, according to which ‘a judgment given in a State bound by this Convention shall be recognised in the other States bound by this Convention without any special procedure being required’. The Court of First Instance further cited Article 41 which stipulates that ‘the judgment shall be declared enforceable immediately on completion of the formalities in Article 53 without any review under Articles 34 and 35’, Article 54 pursuant to the State where a judgment was given shall issue a document certifying the existence of the judgment and Article 55 which provides an option to obtain a translation of the necessary documents. It was confirmed that the plaintiff provided the translated copy of the Norwegian judgment and the certificate referred to in Article 54 of the new Lugano Convention and thus fulfilled all requirements laid down by the Convention. The application was granted, the Norwegian judgment was recognized and declared enforceable in Estonia.
The defendant appealed to the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) alleging that the Court of First Instance seriously infringed upon  procedural law and misapplied substantive law. The defendant mainly claimed that (a) the copy of the judgment provided by the plaintiff was not correctly and reliably certified and (b) the judgment was the subject of pending appellate proceedings in Norway, so the recognition/enforcement proceedings in Estonia must be stayed until a final enforceable Norwegian judgment will be made available.
The Court of Appeal examined the documents in the case provided by the plaintiff and found neither a violation of the new Lugano Convention nor national law. The purpose of the new Lugano Convention is to ensure an immediate judicial proceeding in which the competence of the court is limited to examining the formalities. It held that the Court of First Instance correctly applied the provisions of the new Lugano Convention, including Articles 34 to 36, Article 41, Article 45 and Articles 53 to 55. The translation of the judgment certified by the clerk of the Norwegian court was held acceptable for the purposes of the recognition. The Court of Appeal further refused the allegation that the recognition and enforcement must concern only the final judgment, citing Article 32 of the Convention (“‘judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a State bound by this Convention”). With regards to the Norwegian appellate procedure, the Court of Appeal recalled that a stay of proceedings is not obligatory but depends on the discretion of the court (Article 46(1) of the Convention) and concluded that there was no basis for such a stay in the current proceedings.
The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision and dismissed the appeal.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.