Tartu Ringkonnakohus; 2021-06-10; 2-20-16187/27
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TRRK:2021:2.20.16187.16353
Date: 2021-06-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82021EE0610(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a jurisdiction issue in the international delivery of goods resolved by the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
An Estonian metalworking company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied to the Tartu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’) seeking payment of a debt from a buyer company domiciled in Latvia (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The plaintiff based the jurisdiction of the Estonian courts on Article 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). According to the claim, the plaintiff produced the goods and handed them over to the carrier in Tartu, Estonia, under an alleged EXW Incoterm clause (2).
In response, the defendant objected to the Estonian courts’ jurisdiction, denied the existence of the EXW clause, and based on the final place of delivery in Latvia, and claimed that the case falls within the jurisdiction of the Latvian courts.
The Court of First Instance cited the general jurisdiction clause provided by Article 4(1) and the special jurisdiction clause provided by Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and dismissed the action on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. According to the court, the mere fact that the order refers to the EXW clause is insufficient to establish jurisdiction because the invoice designates the place of delivery in Latvia. Then both the general and special jurisdiction clauses suggest that the Latvian courts shall hear the case.
The plaintiff appealed the first instance conclusion, insisting that the EXW clause is a standard business practice and must be applied within its internationally respected meaning.
The Court of Appeal held that Article 7(1)(a) and the first indent of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) applies to the present case. The solution thus depends on the place of performance of the obligation in question. According to the Court of Appeal, the EXW clause is a standard international trade rule recognised by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The EXW, without any doubt, means that the seller has fulfilled his obligation to deliver the goods when he has placed them at the buyer’s disposal. The words ‘EXW delivery terms‘ were clearly indicated on the invoice. Moreover, the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff arranged the delivery, and the defendant paid for the delivery service. This also suggests the application of the EXW clause.
The Court of First Instance erroneously held that the mere fact that the invoice referring to the EXW does not create an agreement on jurisdiction nor define Estonia as the place of performance of the contract. On the contrary, the correct application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) establishes the jurisdiction of the Estonian courts.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal annulled the first instance decision and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance.
(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) Ex Works (EXW) Incoterm clause means that the seller makes the goods available to the buyer by handing them over to the carrier, while the buyer bears all transport costs and risks from the moment the goods are handed over to the carrier.