Matter
OOO Flaifiš v Dockham OÜ (Supreme Court of Estonia 3-2-2-1-14)
- 19 July 2013Arbitration
19 July 2013Arbitration
Arbitral award of Eduard Neiman dated 19 July 2013
- Decision summary
- The arbitral tribunal upheld OOO Flaifiš's claim against Dockham OÜ and awarded EUR 220,599.49 under the loan agreement.
Supporting details
3 participants9 months and 4 days later · 278 days
- 23 April 2014Estonia
23 April 2014Estonia
Order of Harju County Court dated 23 April 2014
Harju County Court
- Decision summary
- Harju County Court admitted OOO Flaifiš's application to recognize and declare enforceable Eduard Neiman's arbitral award and allowed Dockham OÜ five calendar days to submit its position.
Supporting details
2 participantsOOO Flaifiš
Dockham OÜ
Harju County Court
28 days later · 28 days
- 21 May 2014Estonia
21 May 2014Estonia
Order of Harju County Court in civil case 2-14-15310 dated 21 May 2014
Harju County Court
- Decision summary
- Harju County Court recognized Eduard Neiman's 19 July 2013 arbitral award and declared it enforceable.
Supporting details
2 participantsOOO Flaifiš
Dockham OÜ
Harju County Court
3 months and 6 days later · 98 days
- 27 August 2014Estonia
27 August 2014Estonia
Order of the Supreme Court of Estonia dated 27 August 2014
Supreme Court of Estonia
- Decision summary
- The Supreme Court of Estonia suspended enforcement in enforcement matter No. 26/2014/701 until it issued its decision.
Supporting details
2 participantsOOO Flaifiš
Dockham OÜ
Supreme Court of Estonia
3 months and 6 days later · 98 days
- 3 December 2014Estonia
3 December 2014Estonia
Order of the Supreme Court of Estonia in case 3-2-2-1-14 dated 3 December 2014
Supreme Court of Estonia
- Citation
- ECLI:EE:RK:2014:3.2.2.1.14.554
- Decision summary
- The Supreme Court of Estonia granted Dockham OÜ's review application, quashed the Harju County Court order recognizing and declaring enforceable OOO Flaifiš's arbitral award, and remanded the matter for reconsideration. It held that Dockham had not been lawfully notified of the recognition proceedings and that the lower court had to ensure an effective opportunity to be heard and review the award's enforceability.
Supporting details
3 authorities · 5 participants