Tribunalul Prahova; 2019-05-14; PĂCUREŢU CORNELIU, reclamant, şi NAVYMAR SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED PRIN SC CORONA SRL, pârât, şi SC CREWINGSC GRUP SERVICII PETROLIERE SA, pârât; 334/105/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBPHV:2019:010.001103
Date: 2019-05-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82019RO0514(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute arising out of an employment contract resolved by the Tribunalul Prahova (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’).
A natural person (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought a case before the Court of First Instance and sought the payment of outstanding remuneration amounting to USD 16,982. The debt has arisen for the plaintiff’s unpaid work as a mechanic on an offshore drilling rig. The job performed for the defendant companies was based on embarkation contracts, which the plaintiff regarded as employment contracts under Article 10 of the Codul Muncii (1).
The defendants objected to the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts relying on Articles 3 and 8 of the Rome I Regulation (2) and Article 7(5) and Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (3). The defendants argued that the contract should be governed by the flag state’s laws based on the employment contract provisions. The plaintiff had worked on a drilling rig flying Malta’s flag. Therefore, the jurisdiction shall lie with the Maltese courts. The defendants also objected to the locus standi of defendant 2 since the employment contract was agreed only between the plaintiff and defendant 1. According to Article 10 of the Codul Muncii, only the employee and an employer can relate to the legal relationship arising under the employment contract.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the lack of jurisdiction objection referring to Article 131 of the NCPC (4). It also rejected the plea based on lack of locus standi. The employment contract was concluded with the seafarer agency (defendant 1) but on behalf of the shipowner (defendant 2). It was reliably proved that defendant 2 has the passive capacity to be part of these proceedings.
After examining the evidence, the Court of First Instance confirmed that the plaintiff performed the works as agreed in the employment contract. The defendants failed to prove that the remuneration agreed was paid in full. Therefore, the action was granted, and the defendants were ordered jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff the outstanding salary in the requested amount.
(1) Codul Muncii (Labour Code).
(2) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).
(3) 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.
(4) Nou Codul de procedură civilă (NCPC) (New Code of Civil Procedure).