Tartu Maakohus; 2018-02-07; 2-17-124448/6
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TMK:2018:2.17.124448.3291
Date: 2018-02-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82018EE0207(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 domiciled in a foreign country (hereinafter the defendant). As the order for payment remained unpaid, the case was referred to the Tartu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for further proceedings.
The Court of First Instance held that the dispute with a foreign element must be assessed not only under national law, but also the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) must be considered. The Court of First Instance cited Articles 4(1) and 5(1) and Article 18 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The defendant, considered in this case in the position of a consumer, was held domiciled in other Member State of the European Union. Moreover, the defendant did not enter a proper appearance to the proceedings against him in Estonia. According to Article 28(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), ‘where a defendant domiciled in one Member State is sued in a court of another Member State and does not enter an appearance, the court shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction unless its jurisdiction is derived from the provisions of this Regulation’.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance declared its lack of jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the plaintiff’s application.
(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.