Tribunalul Constanta; 2019-09-25; 697/118/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBCTA:2019:010.001378
Date: 2019-09-25
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82019RO0925(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in an international sale of goods contract, heard by the Tribunalul Constanţa (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
A company domiciled in Spain (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) concluded a sales contract with a company domiciled in the United Kingdom (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) to deliver maize of Romanian origin. Following an inspection of the poor quality of the maize supplied, the parties failed to reach an agreement to solve the dispute. The plaintiff brought the case before the Court of First Instance and sought cancellation of the contract and the damages.
The plaintiff argued that the jurisdiction of the Romanian court is justified under Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), 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 … 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 plaintiff relied on the contractual Incoterm clause ‘FOB port’, according to which the passing of risks involved in the delivery of goods from the seller to the buyer occurs when the goods are loaded on board at the port of shipment. In the present case, the maize obtained in Romania should have been shipped via a Romanian port.
The defendant argued that the quality was accepted under the rules of the agreed authority, the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA), at loading. The plaintiff paid the first instalment without any objections. The shipment took an excessive 48 days, and only then the defendant was notified that the maize was infected with insects and had become unusable. The defendant pledged no liability for the quality of the maize after leaving the Romanian port. The defendant also objected to the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, suggesting that the GAFTA Arbitration Committee shall have jurisdiction, or alternatively, the courts of Spain or the United Kingdom. According to the defendant, the Incoterm’s ‘FOB port Constanta Romania’ clause cannot define the place of delivery within the meaning of Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) (which replaced Article 5 of the Brussels I Regulation).
The Court of First Instance held that Spain must be considered as the final destination for delivering the goods. Romania was only the place of origin of the goods and the place of transfer of risk and costs during the transport from the seller to the buyer, but this is insufficient to indicate a closer connection with the contract. The arbitration under GAFTA was not agreed in writing between the parties and cannot be inferred from the fact that the goods were inspected under the GAFTA rules.
The Court of First Instance declared the lack of jurisdiction of the Romanian courts within the meaning of Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and dismissed the action as inadmissible.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(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.