Tribunalul Prahova; 2017-07-18; BARBU IONEL, reclamant, CORONA CREWING SRL, pârât, şi GRUP SERVICII PETROLIERE SA, pârât, şi NAVYMAR SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED, pârât ; ECLI:RO:TBPHV:2017:010.0
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBPHV:2017:010.003229
Date: 2017-07-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82017RO0718(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’) concluded several employments contracts for the works on the offshore drilling rigs, where he served as a motorman until his retirement. The plaintiff relied on Article 47 of the Codul muncii (1) applicable to posted workers and brought the case against several defendant companies (i.e. the personnel company responsible for hiring the people or the drilling rig owner). The plaintiff requested the Court of First Instance to order the defendants to pay jointly and severally the outstanding remuneration amounting to USD 1,020.
The defendants invoked Articles 3 and 8 of the Rome I Regulation (2) and Article 7(5) and Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (3). They objected to the lack of international jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, arguing 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 defendant 2, who allegedly was not a direct party of the employment contract in compliance with Article 10 of the Codul muncii, and cannot be a party to the present dispute. The defendants further alleged that the plaintiff must be regarded as a third party to the commercial contract between the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot rely on the legal provisions governing the employment contracts.
After examining the case file documents, the Court of First Instance dismissed the objection of lack of international jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Romanian courts was justified by Article 19(2)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (4) establishing the jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment pursuant to the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’. Such a place was held to be in Romania.
The Court of First Instance also rejected the objection based on the alleged commercial character of the relationship between the parties and confirmed that the case is an employment dispute. Finally, the court dismissed also the objection related to the alleged lack of locus standi. The plaintiff reliably proved that he had relations with all defendants labelled in the action.
The plaintiff also reliably demonstrated the existence of the employment contracts and the existence of remuneration entitlements. Conversely, the defendants could not prove that the salary entitlements were fully paid as requested by Article 168(1) and Article 272 of the Codul muncii.
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) 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) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.