Harju Maakohus; 2021-08-30; 2-20-136960/8
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:HMK:2021:2.20.136960.17510
Date: 2021-08-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82021EE0830(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in a civil case solved by the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance in Harju’).
A debt collection company domiciled in Estonia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied to the Pärnu Maakohus (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance in Pärnu’) for a payment order against a Belarussian national (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) due to an outstanding debt. The Court of First Instance in Pärnu, having received no feedback from the defendant, referred the case to the Court of First Instance in Harju.
The Court of First Instance in Harju found that the defendant does not have a valid residential address in Estonia nor has a valid residence permit. The case file does not indicate any facts from which it can be concluded that the defendant is domiciled in Estonia. The court further ascertained that the claim was assigned to the plaintiff by a third party - a commercial company, which had concluded a consumer contract with the defendant. The plaintiff’s application showed no valid agreement on jurisdiction between the parties.
The Court of First Instance in Harju referred to the TsMS (1) and invoked its Article 75(1), according to which the court seised shall examine whether the application may be submitted to an Estonian court under the rules of international jurisdiction.
The Court of First Instance in Harju relied on Article 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), according to which ‘if the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State, the jurisdiction of the courts of each Member State shall, subject to Article 18(1), Article 21(2) and Articles 24 and 25, be determined by the law of that Member State’. Article 18(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) 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’. Article 79(1) of the national TsMS also provides that actions may be brought against natural persons in courts for the place where they are domiciled. Therefore, the court held that the present action might only be brought against the defendant in the country of his current domicile, which is not Estonia.
Under these circumstances, the Court of First Instance in Harju dismissed the plaintiff’s action as inadmissible for a lack of jurisdiction of the Estonian courts.
(1) Tsiviilkohtumenetluse seadustik (Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) 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.