Tribunalul Bacau; 2019-12-18; 1014/110/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBBAC:2019.007.000555
Date: 2019-12-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82019RO1218(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A company Trioforest SRL domiciled in Romania (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought a case concerning contractual claims before the Tribunalul Bacău - Secția a Il-a Civilă, de contencios administrativ și fiscal (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). The plaintiff sought that a company Jordan Construction Materials Company Limited domiciled in Jordan (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) be ordered to pay in RON the sum equivalent to USD 222.739, which represents the price for goods (beech timber) sold to the defendant in 2017, together with the related legal interest from the due date of each invoice until the date of bringing the action.
The Court of First Instance noted that the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) also applies to disputes where the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State unless otherwise provided in its Article 24 (exclusive jurisdiction), Article 25 (the voluntary prorogation of the jurisdiction in favour of the courts of a Member State), Article 18(1) (claims brought by a consumer against a professional) and Article 21(2) (claims brought by an employee against the employer).
In order to assess the place of performance of the contractual obligation in question, the Court of First Instance summarised that this case regards a contract for the sale and purchase of goods concluded at a distance, where the contractual relations were carried out through an intermediary, namely a Romanian citizen of Syrian origin (hereinafter ‘the intermediary’). The intermediary was a director of a company with which the defendant had a contractual relationship and who managed the payments to be made by the defendant to the plaintiff and other companies. The goods were delivered to Jordan, where they were unloaded – they were transported in containers from Bacau, Romania to the port Agigea, Romania and from there by sea to the port Amman, Jordan. In addition, according to the defendant’s arguments, the plaintiff was liable for the delivery of the goods until they reached their destination in Jordan. There was no written contract/order/offer submitted to the Court of First Instance which directly stipulates the ‘place of performance of the obligation’ of the contract. The Court of First Instance received only the copies of invoices accompanying the delivered goods.
In conclusion, the Court of First Instance considered that no justified connecting factor can be identified which would lead to the rejection of the jurisdiction determined pursuant to the defendant’s domicile (Jordan) and the establishment of the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.