Pärnu Maakohus; 2016-06-29; 2-15-124917/9
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:PMK:2016:2.15.124917.6756
Date: 2016-06-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Estonia

82016EE0629(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute between an Internet and digital TV services provider domiciled in Estonia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and an Estonian natural person (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The parties entered into a contract, under which the plaintiff provided Internet and digital TV services and the defendant was obliged to pay for the services in due time. The defendant failed to pay the monthly invoices which resulted in an action of the plaintiff for repayment of the debt together with interests.
The Pärnu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) accepted the action and asked the defendant to provide a response to the alleged claim. However, the court was unable to deliver the documents either to defendant’s address or to his e-mail. The defendant’s relatives alleged that the defendant is no longer living at the address and that he permanently lives and works in XXX (1). The plaintiff was unable to provide a different Estonian address for the defendant. Therefore, the Court of First Instance concluded, that the defendant is domiciled in XXX, which was further confirmed by a phone call with the defendant.
The Court of First Instance cited national law and Article 2(1) of the new Lugano Convention (2), according to which ‘subject to the provisions of this Convention, persons domiciled in a State bound by this Convention shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that State’. The option provided by the § 80(1) of the TsMS (3) that an action against a citizen of the Republic of Estonia living in a foreign state can be filed with the court of the person’s last residence in Estonia is applicable only if the sued citizen is an extra-territorial person or civil servant working in a foreign state. None of these circumstances were applicable to the current dispute.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance declared the lack of jurisdiction of the Estonian courts over this dispute and dismissed the action.
(1) Note: the judgment is anonymized, but the context suggests that the defendant lives and works in Norway.
(2) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(3) Tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik (Code of Civil Procedure).