Attorney-at-law Raini Nõu helped the client to reach a favourable judicial compromise
Attorney-at-law Raini Nõu successfully represented the client in civil proceedings, which ended with a compromise, in in favour of the client. The dispute was about the inadmissibility of compulsory enforcement and the extent to which the notarial contract between the parties must be performed. Client’s opinion was that it was justified to reduce his contractual obligation to pay, which led to a proposal to the defendant to amend the contract by agreement. The opposing party disagreed with the proposal and unexpectedly submitted an application to the bailiff for compulsory enforcement, as in his opinion the client owed him several thousand euros. On behalf of the client, an application for partial cancellation of the contract was submitted to the other party, as there were valid reasons for reducing the obligation to pay. As a result of the initiated enforcement proceedings, a claim was brought to the county court to declare compulsory enforcement to be impermissible.
Having assessed the evidence submitted and the arguments put forward by the parties, the county court stated that compulsory enforcement should be declared partially inadmissible, i.e. the action must be partially upheld. According to the court’s decision, the client’s debt was significantly lower before the start of enforcement proceedings than stated in the defendant’s enforcement application submitted to the bailiff, and the court found that the client had to pay significantly less than the defendant had expected from the start of the enforcement proceedings.
The applicant partially contested the county court’s decision and explained the incorrect application of substantive law by the court and various violations of procedural law. At the end of the circuit court hearing the opposing party expressed a wish to conclude a compromise. After some discussion, an agreement was concluded, which in summary stated that the client had no debt before the defendant, the enforcement procedure is declared inadmissible, the client pays significantly less monthly than in the notarial agreement concluded in 2019, as well as the 2021 county court decision, and this compromise amends the notarial agreement.
Probably the defendant felt that the circuit court might grant the appeal entirely. However, the applicant had no reason to be maximalist either, since he was satisfied by the content of the reached compromise.