Court dismissed enforcement of a foreign judgment against a non-resident due to lack of jurisdiction and service issues.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Pärnu County Court dismissed the enforcement application against a non-resident defendant who was not properly served. The plaintiff argued that the foreign judgment should be recognized, but the court found no jurisdiction over the defendant and noted procedural defects in service. Consequently, the court ruled that the enforcement request could not proceed without addressing these fundamental jurisdictional and procedural gaps.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 17 ust. 1 k.r.s.; Art. 18 k.r.s.: A foreign judgment cannot be enforced against a non-resident defendant if the court lacks jurisdiction or if the defendant was not properly served with the enforcement request.
Keywords
AI generatedCited Legislation
AI generatedFull text
!"
#
$% &'
((
) "
#! !
!'
!
#!!'
%
! !
! *+,!*((
"#$%&'#($$)
*
! ! ,
'
+ , - +.+,++ '
!
., /* -
,
0
1223
+
*
!
,+.+++
!!.++
*
! ! ,
'
+, +..+,+ '
!
., / -
.,
.
1223
+
*
!
+.+++
!!++
"
# '
#& !
'
# " #*
'
!#&!!'
* !
/0 !
((
) "
#!!
! ! ,
' '
!
#!
!'
%*
#!"# '
! ! &! ! * 11!'&
-%#"#!!22
'!%!!''-
#!
*
#!! &"!! % ! ! '
!
#!
!!
%* "!!
3 4 % " +' !
!'
%'
!!#' #*2
5 !"
#