Source: https://www.riigikohus.ee/en/constitutional-judgment-3-2-1-153-13
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 17:42:00
Document Index: 498710988

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 174', '§ 175', '§ 175', 'art.\n8', '§ 175', '§ 175', '§ 18', '§ 19', '§ 690', '§ 3', '§ 175', '§ 175']

﻿ Constitutional judgment 3-2-1-153-13 | The Estonian Supreme Court
Constitutional judgment 3-2-1-153-13
Claimant: Baltforce OÜ (former name HIPHOP OÜ) (registry code 10975853), legal representative: board member Lauri Liiv
15 April 2014, written hearing
1. To declare subsection 8 of § 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which procedural expenses may be determined by an assistant judge in civil proceedings, unconstitutional and repeal it.
2. To hold that the wording of subsection 3 of § 175 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was in force from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2008, was unconstitutional.
3. To hold that Regulation No. 306 of the Government of the Republic of 15 December 2005 ‘Limits of Recovery of Expenses of Contractual Representative and Advisor from Other Parties to Proceedings,’ which was in force from 1 January 2006 to 11 September 2008, was unconstitutional.
4. To declare subsection 4 of § 175 of the Code of Civil Procedure unconstitutional and repeal it.
5. To declare Regulation No. 137 of the Government of the Republic of 4 September 2008 ‘Limits of Recovery of Expenses of Contractual Representative from Other Parties to Proceedings’ unconstitutional and repeal it.
6. To quash the order of the Tallinn Court of Appeal of 24 May 2013 and the order of the Harju County Court of 7 March 2013 in civil case no. 2-08-54906 and send the request for determining the procedural expenses back to the same county court for a new hearing.
7. To grant the appeal of Aktsiaselts Uvic in part.
8. To refund to Advokaadibüroo GLIMSTEDT OÜ (current account no. 17000681438, Estonian branch of Nordea Bank Finland Plc) the security of 50 (fifty) euros paid on 4 June 2013 on the appeal filed by Aktsiaselts Uvic.
ORDER OF THE TALLINN CIRCUIT COURT
12. By an order dated 24 May 2014, the Tallinn Circuit Court upheld the order of the county court and dismissed the appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES IN THE SUPREME COURT
16.-21. [Not translated.]
OPINION OF THE CIVIL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT
22. Upon reviewing the case on 18 November 2013, serious disagreements arose between the members of the three-member panel of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court on how subsection 4 of § 175 of the CCP (before 1 January 2009, subsection 3 of § 175 of the CCP) should be applied and interpreted. By an order dated 18 December 2013, the three-member panel referred the case to the full Chamber on the basis of subsection 2 of § 18 of the CCP.
23. By an order dated 26 February 2014, the full Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court placed the claimant’s request before the Supreme Court en banc on the basis of clause 3 of subsection 4 of § 19 and the first sentence of subsection 1 of § 690 of the CCP and the second sentence of subsection 3 of § 3 of the Judicial Constitutional Review Procedure Act (JCRPA). Upon reviewing the case, the Chamber came to suspect that subsection 3 of § 175 of the CCP, which was in force before 1 January 2009 and according to which the Government of the Republic establishes the limits of recovery of the expenses of a contractual representative and advisor from other parties to proceedings, as well as Regulation No. 306 of the Government of the Republic of 15 December 2005 established on the basis thereof may be unconstitutional.
30. The Constitutional Committee of the Riigikogu is of the opinion that subsection 3 of § 175 of the CCP in force before 1 January 2009 and Regulation No. 306 of the Government of the Republic of 15 December 2005 were in line with the Constitution. [Not translated.]