Judecatoria Constanta; 2019-07-16; 20869/212/2016
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:JDCTA:2019:001.008311
Date: 2019-07-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82019RO0716(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a consumer dispute for compensation for damages resolved by the Judecătoria Constanţa (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’).
A Romanian national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) made an online car rental reservation for its planned vacation in Madrid through an intermediary company domiciled in Romania (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’). The reservation was made in favour of, and the car should have been provided by, a company domiciled in Spain (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’). The plaintiff paid for the rental before departure and received a voucher to confirm the processed order. However, after arrival, defendant 2 refused to hand over the car to the plaintiff due to lack of passport identification. The plaintiff identified himself by a Romanian ID Card, which was not accepted by defendant 2, although the plaintiff was a European Union citizen.
The plaintiff brought a case before the Court of First Instance and sought a re-payment of the material damages (i.e., the sum paid online for the reserved car plus the additional sum paid in Madrid due to the need to rent another vehicle from a different company). The plaintiff also requested compensation for the non-material damages related to the unexpected difficulties caused to him amounted to EUR 20,000.
Defendant 2 objected to the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, and the Court of First Instance upheld the objection and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff appealed the conclusion, and the Court of First Instance (sitting in a different senate) allowed the appeal.
According to the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff must be deemed to be a consumer, and the present case could be then subsumed under the hypothesis defined by Article 17(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The jurisdiction is established under Article 18(1) of the same Regulation, according to which ‘a consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the Member State in which that party is domiciled or, regardless of the domicile of the other party, in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled’. The jurisdiction of the Romanian courts is therefore well-founded.
The Court of First Instance further confirmed that defendant 1, as an intermediary to the contract, has fulfilled all his obligations and provided the plaintiff with all necessary information, including information on the documents required to collect the car in Madrid. According to the contract, defendant 1 had no obligation to make the vehicle available to the plaintiff, only to mediate the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant 2. Therefore, the action against defendant 1 was dismissed.
Regarding defendant 2, the court held that it infringed its contractual obligations since it refused to hand over the reserved car to the plaintiff and ignored the Romanian ID card. However, it informs its customers that European Union citizens may substitute the passport for an ID card. The plaintiff was then forced to rent another car, resulting in the plaintiff’s material loss. The requirements to establish the contractual liability of defendant 2 were held fulfilled. The action against defendant 2 was upheld, and defendant 2 was ordered to pay the plaintiff the specified sum.
The court further explained that non-material compensation must be proportionate to the damage suffered. In the light of this consideration, the payment was awarded, but the amount claimed was significantly reduced.
(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.