Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 6 June 2024 – A v B

(Case C-398/24, Pome)  (1)

(C/2024/4848)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: A

Defendant and respondent: B

Question referred

Is the fact that the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction is subject to the condition that the natural persons who have concluded it are acting in the course of economic and professional activity, as provided for in Paragraph 106(1)(1) of the Estonian Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that an agreement conferring jurisdiction concluded between natural persons is to be null and void if it infringes Paragraph 104(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which a dispute between natural persons which is to be heard by a court pursuant to an agreement conferring jurisdiction must be connected with the economic or professional activity of both parties, a matter relating to the substantive validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction within the meaning of the first sentence in fine of Article 25(1) (‘unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State’) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (2) 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 (recast)?

(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)   OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.