Harju Maakohus; 2021-10-22; 2-21-11098/9
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:HMK:2021:2.21.11098.27821
Date: 2021-10-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82021EE1022(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute arising from a credit agreement brought before the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
In June 2021, a German creditor (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) requested the Court of First Instance to commence insolvency proceedings against a debtor company domiciled in Estonia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) for an alleged unpaid debt. The debt has arisen out of a credit agreement the parties concluded in November 2019 with a repayment period of one year. The plaintiff alleged that the credit remains unpaid. On the contrary, the defendant argued that it believed that the due date had been extended via oral agreement made during online meetings between the parties held in January and October 2020. The defendant asserted that the credit agreement was still valid and the due date was still pending, therefore the plaintiff has no enforceable title to request insolvency proceedings grounded by the alleged unpaid debt. Moreover, the defendant maintained that German law governs the credit agreement and all related disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the German courts.
The Court of First Instance cited Article 15(3)(1) of the PankrS (1), according to which the request for the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings may be dismissed if the debtor reasonably contests the claim on the merits and the court considers that the dispute should be settled outside of bankruptcy proceedings. The court noted that claims in bankruptcy proceedings must be unambiguous, enforceable and not contestable. In the present case, these conditions were not fulfilled because the defendant had disputed the claim in its entirety.
The Court of First Instance also confirmed that the credit agreement is subject to German law and contains a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the German courts, agreed in compliance with Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2). Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff neither substantiated the defendant’s alleged insolvency nor explained how they calculated the final amount indicated as the debt, which is again contrary to the PankrS.
The Court of First Instance held that the dispute as to the existence of the claim and the legal basis of the claim must be settled outside of bankruptcy proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiff’s request was dismissed and the insolvency proceedings were not commenced.
(1) Pankrotiseadus (Bankruptcy Act).
(2) 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.