Riigikohus; 2010-12-01; 3-2-1-117-10
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:RK:2010:3.2.1.117.10.464
Date: 2010-12-01
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82010EE1201(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards an application for the recognition of a European Enforcement Order (EEO) filled by an Estonian company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) against a company domiciled in Lithuania (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The dispute arose mainly about (a) the definition of an authentic document as defined by Article 4(3) of the Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1), (b) the legality of an issuing authority, as the document constituting the EEO was certified by Lithuanian notary and (c) the compliance with all formal requirements laid down by Regulation (EC) No 805/2004.
The issue of whether the bailiff is entitled to accept the present EEO was assessed by the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), which held that the commencement of the proceedings was reasonable.
The same issue was later re-assessed by the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which confirmed the first-instance conclusion that the notary of Lithuania shall be understood as a relevant authority within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 and the EEO in dispute shall be accepted.
The defendant appealed to the Riigikohus (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) alleging that the EEO did not comply with all formal requirements and cannot be accepted. Moreover, Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 applies to uncontested claims, and a claim shall be regarded as uncontested if ‘the debtor has never objected to it’ (Article 3(1)(d) of the Regulation), but the defendant alleged that there are several objections against it.
The Supreme Court held that the EEO in question was not prepared in a standard form as required by Annex III to the Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 and it lacked several obligatory information. It was not possible to ascertain clearly who the issuer of the EEO in question was. Non-compliance with the standard form is therefore a breach of the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 which results in the non-existence of the enforcement order. With regards to the consent of the debtor, the Supreme Court held that it doesn’t need to be clearly marked in the enforcement order, but it must be expressed in the proceedings on a national level which lead to the issuing of the EEO. The objections against the EEO should therefore have been filed with the issuing authority in Lithuania and resolved by that authority.
The Supreme Court partially allowed the grounds for appeal, annulled the decisions of both lower courts and obliged the bailiff to end the enforcement procedure
(1) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims.