Tartu Maakohus; 2022-03-22; 2-21-143333/4
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:TMK:2022:2.21.143333.4599
Date: 2022-03-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82022EE0322(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in a credit loan related dispute addressed to the Tartu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Tartu’).
Following the incurrence of a debt under an outstanding loan agreement, a creditor company established in Estonia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied to the Pärnu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance in Pärnu’) and sought the payment of the debt from the debtor (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The plaintiff relied on Article 19(3) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) and invoked the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) of the loan contract, according to which the parties were entitled to bring the action before the Estonian courts.
The Court of First Instance in Pärnu issued a payment order, but the attempts to serve the defendant with the given order remained unsuccessful. Subsequently, the Court of First Instance in Pärnu terminated the proceedings and referred the case to the Court of First Instance in Tartu, which was better placed to hear the plaintiff’s claim.
The Court of First Instance in Tartu ascertained that the defendant is domiciled in another Member State of the European Union and held that the defendant must be considered a consumer within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Article 18(2) of the Regulation provides that ‘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’. Since the defendant is a consumer and is domiciled abroad, the Estonian courts lack jurisdiction to hear the claim.
Article 19 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) allows to derogate from this general rule by an agreement, but the Court of First Instance in Tartu assessed the standard GTC clause not to be sufficient to comply with the legal requirements of such agreement. The Court expressed its doubt about the express defendant’s consent with the jurisdiction clause. According to the VÕS (2), in case of doubts, the standard contractual term shall be interpreted to the detriment of the person claiming the term. Therefore, the contractual clause conferring jurisdiction invoked by the plaintiff was held invalid under the Estonian law and, as such, cannot be subject to the prorogation of jurisdiction governed by Article 25(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The Court of First Instance in Tartu further considered Article 26 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (jurisdiction of a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance). The court held it inapplicable to the present case since the defendant did not respond to the claim and the attempts to serve the documents on him were unsuccessful, so the defendant did not enter an appearance at the proceedings.
No other option justifying exclusive jurisdiction of the Estonian courts provided by Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) applies to the present case.
Therefore, since the Court of First Instance in Tartu found no grounds for establishing the jurisdiction of the Estonian courts,  the plaintiff’s action was dismissed.
(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) Võlaõigusseadus (Obligations Act).