Tribunalul Prahova; 2019-06-05; NIŢESCU ANTONIU, reclamant, NAVYMAR SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED PRIN MANDATAR CORONA CREWING SRL, pârât, SC GRUP SERVICII PETROLIERE SA, PÂRÂT; 5939/105/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBPHV:2019:010.001302
Date: 2019-06-05
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82019RO0605(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’) applied before the Court of First Instance and sought the repayment of USD 23,429 as the outstanding remuneration for works performed for the defendant companies. Defendant 1 was a company responsible for recruiting personnel with a branch situated in Romania, and defendant 2 was an owner of a drilling rig domiciled in Cyprus. The plaintiff worked for them based on various employment contracts as a drilling engineer on an offshore drilling rig.
Regarding the international jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, the plaintiff relied on Article 21(1)(b)(i) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), according to which ‘an employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued, in another Member State, in the courts for the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so’. The plaintiff believed that Article 23, in conjunction with Article 25(4) of this Regulation, must be understood in a way that an employee has the right, not the obligation, to bring the case to the courts designated by agreement on choice of law or by agreement conferring jurisdiction.
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). They argued that the contract should be governed by the flag state's laws based on the employment contract provisions. The plaintiff has 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 contracts were agreed only between the plaintiff and defendant 1.
The Court of First Instance cited Article 7(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), according to which ‘a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, in the courts for the place where the branch, agency or other establishment is situated’. Since the branch of defendant 1 was situated in Romania, the general jurisdiction of the Romanian courts was well established. The objection to the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts was rejected.
The Court of First Instance upheld the objection based on lack of locus standi. After analysing the employment contracts between the parties, the court held that the contracts were concluded only between the plaintiff and defendant 1. Defendant 2 was not a contractual party. Therefore, the contractual entitlements are not enforceable against it before a court.
Regarding the case’s merits, the Court of First Instance held that the burden of proof that the remuneration was correctly paid lies on the employer, i.e., defendant 1. However, defendant 1 failed to present evidence to prove the correct payments. Neither it disputed the case’s merit in its response to the action.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance upheld the plaintiff’s claim and ordered defendant 1 to pay the requested sum.
(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) 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).