Judecatoria Radauti; 2017-02-06; 3890/285/2016
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:JDRAD:2017:005.000461
Date: 2017-02-06
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82017RO0206(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a dispute over payment of debt and the related question of jurisdiction resolved by the Judecătoria Rădăuţi (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’).
A plaintiff applied before the Court of First Instance seeking the payment of outstanding debt arising from a Transport Service Contract concluded with the defendant.
The defendant relied on the provision included in the invoices issued within the contract dealing with the jurisdiction questions, objected to the Romanian courts’ jurisdiction, and requested that the plaintiff’s application be dismissed as unfounded. Conversely, the defendant filed a counterclaim. It requested the court to order the plaintiff to pay the value of the goods allegedly stolen and loss of profit resulting from the termination of the contractual relationship.
The Court of First Instance admitted the objection of lack of jurisdiction and transferred the case to another court, which, however, refused to accept the case, and referred the case back. The Curtea de Apel (‘the Court of Appeal’) resolved this negative conflict of jurisdiction by establishing the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
The Court of First Instance examined the documents provided by the parties and ascertained that the parties validly concluded a contract for the provision of services with the places of performance in England, Germany and the Netherlands. In disputes with a foreign element, jurisdiction is governed not only by national law but also by the law of the European Union.
Article 7(1)(a) and second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) provides that ‘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; for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, 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’.
Based on the cited provision and Articles 132 and 1071 of the C.pr.civ (2), the Court of First Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible. Based on Article 210 of the C.pr.civ, it also dismissed the counterclaim filed by the defendant.
(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.
(2) Codul de Procedură Civilă (Code of Civil Procedure).