Piia Kalamees Karin Sein


The present article analyses the relevant judgments of the CJEU and looks into whether Estonian legislation and the case law of the Estonian Supreme Court (Riigikohus) concerning standard terms are consistent with the interpretations given by the CJEU. The article does not investigate all aspects associated with the rules on standard terms but rather concentrates only on the procedural obligations of a national court in deciding upon the unfair nature of standard terms and the consequences of establishing the unfairness of standard terms. The article also enquires whether the Estonian legislation on the order for payment procedure is in line with the UCTD. The authors submit that Estonian law - both the rules on standard terms as well as the procedural rules - is generally consistent with the requirements set out by the CJEU. In most cases, the Estonian Supreme Court (Riigikohus) also follows the procedural standards created by the CJEU case law on UCTD. Nevertheless, the Estonian rules on order for payment procedure not in all aspects meet the CJEU standards set in the recent Finanmadrid case, as the Estonian procedural law does not allow the unfairness control of standard terms in the initial proceeding nor at the later enforcement stage. Therefore, the Estonian Code of Civil Procedure needs to be changed to bring it in line with the UCTD.