NOVE’s attorney-at-law Kristjan Tamm successfully represented a client in a precedent-setting case before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The case revolved around the question of whether, and under what conditions, two natural persons in a cross-border dispute may agree that any dispute between them will be resolved by an Estonian court (a jurisdiction agreement). The Court of Justice clarified that the permissibility and validity of such an agreement must be assessed under EU law, and Member States (including Estonia) may not use national law to restrict the conditions under which a jurisdiction agreement can be concluded. Such restrictions would conflict with the objectives of EU law.
Under Estonian law, two natural persons may generally conclude a jurisdiction agreement only if the dispute is connected to the economic or professional activities of both parties (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 104 and 106). The Court of Justice emphasised that EU law is based on the principle of freedom of choice between the parties. This raises the justified question of whether Estonian law—being inconsistent with internationally recognised principles and restricting party autonomy—requires revision and whether this unnecessary limitation on the parties’ freedom of choice should be eliminated.
The decision of the European Court of Justice can be found here.
