Judecatoria Botosani; 2017-01-31; 14079/193/2015
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:JDBTS:2018:001.002969
Date: 2018-06-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82018RO0622(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in a dispute arising out of a sales contract, which was examined by the Judecătoria Botoşani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
A company domiciled in Romania (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) concluded a sales contract with a company domiciled in Sweden (hereinafter ‘the defendant’); the plaintiff undertook to deliver the goods, and the defendant undertook to pay the price. The contract contained a jurisdictional clause in favour of the Romanian courts. The goods were supplied successfully, but part of the price remained unpaid. The plaintiff brought proceedings before the Court of First Instance, seeking an injunction ordering the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 5116,97 representing the outstanding debt.
The defendant invoked Article 1065(1) of the CPC (1), according to which the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts is given if the defendant is domiciled in Romania. Since the defendant has its registered office in Sweden, it objected to the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts. The defendant also relied on Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (2), according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued, 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 sale of goods, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered’. The contractual documents proved that the place of delivery was in Sweden.
The Court of First Instance upheld the plea of a lack of jurisdiction of the Romanian courts and dismissed the claim as inadmissible. The plaintiff appealed this conclusion to the Tribunalul Botoșani (the Court of Appeal), which annulled the first instance decision and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new trial.
The Court of First Instance re-registered the case, re-analysed the documents in the case file and held that the plaintiff reliably proved the existence of the contract. According to the Codul Civil (3), the plaintiff shall prove only the existence of the obligation in question. At the same time, the defendant has the burden of proving that the obligation has been fulfilled. In this case, the defendant has not provided any evidence of the performance of its obligation to pay the full contractual price.
Accordingly, the action was admitted. The defendant was ordered to pay the remainder of the debt as requested by the plaintiff.
(1) Codul de Procedură Civilă (Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(3) Codul Civil (Civil Code).