Tribunalul Constanta; 2020-06-23; 3969/118/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBCTA:2020:001.001198
Date: 2020-06-23
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82020RO0623(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a work-related dispute resolved by the Tribunalul Constanta (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’).
A Romanian citizen (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Court of First Instance and requested the payment of outstanding salaries for work carried out on a mobile drilling platform. He sued the owners/operators of the platform (hereinafter ‘the defendants’).
One of the defendants objected to their passive legal capacity since the work contract was concluded only between the plaintiff and the other defendants. The other defendants objected to the international jurisdiction of the Romanian courts. They relied on Article 3 (Freedom of choice) of the Rome I Regulation (1) and Article 25 (Prorogation of jurisdiction) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2). They claimed that there was a jurisdictional clause in favour of the courts of Malta.
The Court of First Instance upheld the objection on the passive legal capacity of one of the defendants since this company was only a supplier of the others and cannot be regarded as the plaintiff’s employer.
The objection of a lack of international jurisdiction was dismissed. The dispute concerns a Romanian citizen and his employment contract with a foreign company working abroad. The jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment is governed by Chapter II Section 5 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The agreement on jurisdiction invoked by the defendants was considered null and void as it breached Article 23(2), according to which ‘the provisions of this section may be departed from only by an agreement, which allows the employee to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section’. Article 25(4) then provides ‘agreements or provisions of a trust instrument conferring jurisdiction shall have no legal force if they are contrary to Articles 15, 19 or 23’. The Rome I Regulation does not apply to the present case.
The plaintiff carried out the work on a drilling platform located in Romanian waters. Therefore, the ‘place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work’ stipulated by Article 21(1)(b)(i) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) must be understood as being in Romania. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts is well-founded.
According to the plaintiff, he carried out the agreed work, but it remained unpaid. It is then on the defendant to put forward any defence on the case’s merits, but he failed to do so. The defendant has not contested the amount of the salary entitlements claimed by the plaintiff and did not provide any evidence that the salary was correctly paid.
Under these circumstances, the Court of First Instance considered the claim well-founded and ordered the defendant to pay 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.