Tartu Ringkonnakohus; 2022-01-31; 2-21-110408/13
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TRRK:2022:2.21.110408.2878
Date: 2022-01-31
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82022EE0131(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in a consumer dispute brought before the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
An Estonian branch of a foreign bank (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied to the Pärnu Maakohus (Pärnu court) for an order against a natural person (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) in respect of a debt arising out of a credit agreement. The Pärnu court issued a payment order, but the attempts to serve the order to the defendant failed as the documents were returned to the court as undelivered. The defendant confirmed by phone that he had moved to Finland with no place of residence in Estonia but stated that he had stayed in Estonia for several weeks with a friend. The attempts to deliver the documents via the Finnish courts were unsuccessful too. The Pärnu court terminated the proceedings and transferred the case to the Tartu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for the continuation of the proceedings.
The Court of First Instance identified the defendant as a consumer domiciled in Finland and invoked Article 18(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘proceedings may be brought against a consumer by the other party to the contract only in the courts of the Member State in which the consumer is domiciled’. Therefore, the action was dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction of the Estonian courts over the claim.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, alleging that the defendant did not sufficiently prove his Finnish domicile. Conversely, the signed credit agreement contained the defendant’s Estonian address. In breach of the credit agreement’s General Terms and Conditions (GTC), the defendant did not inform the plaintiff of his address change. Moreover, the plaintiff relied on the jurisdiction clause in favour of the Estonian courts included in the GTC.
The Court of Appeal held that the assessment of the defendant’s domicile by the Court of First Instance was insufficient. The lower court relied only on an old Population register entry and information provided by the defendant via a phone conversation. However, several indications suggested that the defendant was domiciled in Estonia too. The Court of Appeal recalled that there is an option of a person having a domicile in more than one place at the same time, as suggested by the national law, and the circumstances of the present case must be examined more thoroughly.
The grounds of appeal based on the alleged jurisdiction clause were dismissed. The defendant’s consumer status precludes its application. Furthermore, the jurisdiction clause cannot remain applicable if the defendant moves abroad or his place of residence is not known at the time of filing the action (Article 104 of the TsMS (2)).
Therefore, the appeal was granted partially, and the order of the Court of First Instance was annulled. The case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for a new assessment of the action’s admissibility.
(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.
(2) Tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik (Code of Civil Procedure).