Tribunalul Prahova; 2017-09-15; PETRE BASARAB ALBERTO, reclamant, şi GRUP SERVICII PETROLIERE SA, pârât, şi NAVYMAR SHIPPING COMPANY LTD. LA SCA, pârât; 2578/105/2017
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBPHV:2017:010.003740
Date: 2017-09-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82017RO0915(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 domiciled in Romania (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) alleged that he concluded with the defendant companies several employments contracts and performed the works on offshore drilling rigs within the meaning of the contracts. He applied before the Court of First Instance and asked for the payment of outstanding remuneration of USD 36,940.
The defendants invoked Articles 3 and 8 of the Rome I Regulation (1) and Article 7(5) and Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) and objected to the lack of international jurisdiction of the Romanian courts. They argued by the contractual provision according to which the law of the flag state shall govern the contract. According to the defendants, the plaintiff worked on the rig flying the Maltese flag.
They also alleged a lack of locus standi against one of the defendants who was not a direct part of the employment contract. Finally, they also argued that a plaintiff must be regarded as a third party to the existing contractual relationship between the defendants, therefore, he cannot rely on the protection provided to employees.
The plaintiff responded that one of the defendants has a registered office in Romania. According to Article 1066(1) of the CPC (3), he could sue all defendants before the Romanian courts. Moreover, Articles 20 to 23 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) allow him, as an employee, to initiate proceedings in Romanian courts irrespective of the fact that an agreement conferring jurisdiction exists between the parties. The recruitment, the necessary professional training, and the medical examinations required for the job position were all carried out in Romania and paid for by one of the defendants.
According to the Court of First Instance, the applicability of the jurisdiction clause must be assessed according to the nature of the legal relationship between the parties. The agreements conferring jurisdiction are indeed regulated by the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Still, the same Regulation in its Article 20 provides special provisions related to jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment. Under its Recital 18, ‘in relation to [..] employment contracts, the weaker party should be protected by the rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules.’ Following the case law, the Court of First Instance held that the employee’s right to bring proceedings before the courts which have jurisdiction under Article 20 of the Regulation could not be restricted, even where there is a clause conferring jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Romanian courts was found well-established. The defendants’ objection was rejected.
The objection of lack of locus standi was dismissed too. According to the court, the plaintiff has a justifiable reason to bring the proceedings and obtain a  judgment enforceable against all the defendants.
The plaintiff reliably proved the existence of the employment contracts, and, conversely, the defendants were not able to demonstrate that the salary entitlements were fully paid as agreed. Therefore, the Court of First Instance granted the plaintiff’s application and ordered the defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff the requested sum.
(1) 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).
(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.
(3) Codul de Procedură Civilă (Code of Civil Procedure).