Tribunalul Prahova; 2018-12-21; IRIMESCU MARIUS-VALENTIN, reclamant, şi NAVYMAR SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED, pârât, şi SC GRUP SERVICII PETROLIERE SA, pârât ; 4315/105/2018
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBPHV:2018:010.003871
Date: 2018-12-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82018RO1221(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’) concluded several employment contracts for works on offshore drilling rigs. The contracts were signed with defendant 1 (personnel agency responsible for hiring people), who acted on behalf of defendant 2 (owner of the drilling rig). The plaintiff requested the Court of First Instance to order the defendants to pay jointly and severally the outstanding remuneration amounting to USD 42,661.
The defendants invoked Articles 3 and 8 of the Rome I Regulation (1) and Article 7(5) and Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) and objected to the lack of international jurisdiction of the Romanian courts. They argued by the contractual provision according to which the law of the flag state shall govern the contract. According to the defendants, the plaintiff worked on a rig flying the Maltese flag. They also alleged a lack of locus standi against defendant 2, who allegedly was not a direct part of the employment contract.
The plaintiff responded that defendant 1 has a registered office in Romania. Then, according to Article 1066(1) of the CPC (3), he could sue all defendants before the Romanian courts. Moreover, Articles 20 to 23 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) allow him, as an employee, to initiate proceedings in Romanian courts irrespective of the fact that agreement conferring jurisdiction exists between the parties. Furthermore, the contract was concluded in Romania, the plaintiff is a Romanian citizen, and his departure for work was always from Romania. All the case circumstances suggest that the contract is more closely connected with Romania. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts is justified by Article 21(1)(b)(i) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
After examining the case file documents, the Court of First Instance invoked Article 8(4) of the Rome I Regulation and Article 1066 of the CPC. It confirmed the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts. The objection of lack of locus standi was dismissed too. According to the court, the plaintiff has reliably proved that defendant 2 acted as an employer towards him.
The plaintiff also reliably proved the existence of the employment contracts, and, conversely, the defendants were not able to demonstrate that the salary entitlements were fully paid as agreed. Therefore, the Court of First Instance granted the plaintiff’s application and ordered the defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff 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.
(3) Codul de Procedură Civilă (Code of Civil Procedure).