Judecatoria Mangalia; 2016-11-18; 3672/254/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:JDMAN:2016:001.001985
Date: 2016-11-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82016RO1118(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in a dispute concerning the contract for providing services examined by the Judecatoria Mangalia (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
A hospitality company domiciled in Romania (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) concluded two contracts for providing tourist services with a travel company domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The plaintiff provided the services agreed in the contracts, but the defendant did not pay for it properly. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an action before the Court of First Instance and sought payment of the debt.
The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, relying on the jurisdiction clause agreed in the contract, according to which the contracts were governed by German law and any potential disputes should have been resolved by a German court. Conversely, the plaintiff relied on the provisions of the Codul Civil (1), according to which the case shall be heard by the Romanian court since the services were provided in Romania. The plaintiff supported this view by Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question […] the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be, in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’.
The Court of First Instance recalled that, under national law, the agreement on jurisdiction might be deemed null and void in cases falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Romanian courts or in cases where the proceedings before a foreign court would result in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights. In the present case, there are no such indications. The hearing before the German court would not deprive the plaintiff of its rights. The article of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) cited by the plaintiff is correct. Still, Article 25 of the same Regulation provides that the parties could agree on a specific court to settle any disputes connected to their legal relationship. Jurisdiction under such agreement, providing that it was agreed validly, is exclusive. The Court of First Instance found no reasons to consider the jurisdiction clause null and void and confirmed that the case must be heard by a German court designated in the agreement conferring jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance upheld the defendant's plea of a lack of international jurisdiction of the Romanian courts and, consequently, dismissed the plaintiff’s action.
(1) Codul Civil (Civil Code)
(2) 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.