This case regards an action brought by a liquidator of an Estonian company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) against a foreign natural person (hereinafter the defendant). The plaintiff sought the revocation of a financial transaction executed by the defendant and the repayment of EUR 100.000 together with interest.
The Viru Maakohus (hereinafter the Court of First Instance) ordered to the defendant to file any opposition to the action in writing within 14 days after delivery of the order. The Court of First Instance did not receive any response, so a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff was delivered.
The defendant later requested an extension of the limit to file the opposition, acceptance of the opposition and an annulment of the default judgment. The defendant argued that she does not speak the Estonian language, as she is a Russian citizen domiciled permanently in Sweden. The Court of First Instance reviewed its previous judgment and held that the defendant had also a permit to live in Estonia and therefore her Estonian residence is enough to establish jurisdiction over the defendant. The fact that the defendant does not speak Estonian language is irrelevant since the defendant was represented by an Estonian lawyer, who should have been aware of consequences of not responding to the court’s order in due time. Neither was an opposition filed nor was a request for the extension of the deadline from the defendant (or her lawyer) made, so the Court of First Instance justified the default judgment and confirmed termination of the procedure.
The defendant repealed to the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) seeking an annulment of the default judgment and an acceptance of the opposition. The defendant alleged that the present dispute has a foreign element, as the Sweden must be understood as the domicile of the defendant, and thus the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) shall be applied.
The Court of Appeal recalled that the 14-day limit for filing an opposition is the minimum period set by national legislation and it may be properly extended in special circumstances. Considering the significant amount that the dispute concerned, the fact that the defendant does not speak Estonian and that she is domiciled in another Member State of the European Union, the Court of Appeal held that the defendant had a reasonable grounds for not filing the opposition in due time.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal granted the appeal, annulled the first instance decision, ordered that the opposition provided by the defendant be accepted and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for the procedure to be continued.