The Supreme Court of Estonia noted in its decision yesterday that as Estonia does not have a national system which would allow for the verification of which courts of arbitration are permanent and which aren’t, all court of arbitration rulings must undergo recognition procedures before their execution.
The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that by law, courts could, without declaring them as enforceable, compulsorily execute the decisions of permanent courts of arbitration only, but as there was no national monitoring system, it was not possible to assume based on name alone that a court of arbitration was permanent.
In Estonia, the activity of courts of arbitration is regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, and while the law provides for the ruling of a permanent court of arbitration to be enforceable without recognition and without a declaration of enforceability, not a single law includes criteria by which it would be possible to discern whether or not a court of arbitration was permanently active in the eyes of that same code.
The Supreme Court added that due to the absence of such criteria, it would be impossible for a bailiff to discern as well whether or not a judgment submitted for execution had been handed down by a court of arbitration permanently active in Estonia, in which case the bailiff could not consider such court decisions to be writs of execution and fulfill them accordingly.
A bailiff could, however, execute court of arbitration decisions which have been recognized and declared enforceable by the courts.
Editor: Editor: Aili Sarapik