Tribunalul Constanta; 2019-10-16; Dosar nr. 8367/118/2017*
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBCTA:2019:001.002400
Date: 2019-10-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82019RO1016(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a labour dispute heard by the Tribunalul Constanţa (hereinafter ‘Court of First Instance’).
A natural person (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought a case before the Court of First Instance seeking compensation for an alleged occupational disease he had developed as a direct consequence of his employment. He worked on a sea ship owned by a French company (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’), which he sued together with a Romanian company that mediated the employment (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’)
Defendant 1 objected to the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts or, in the alternative, claimed that the plaintiff’s action was unfounded and time-barred. Defendant 1 relied on Article 20(1) and Article 21(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). In support of the plea of limitation, defendant 1 relied on the general period of three years laid down in Article 2517 of the CC (2). Furthermore, defendant 1 considered the claim unfounded since the requested compensation for loss of working capacity is payable by the shipowner only where an injury results from an accident at work and not from an occupational disease. However, the plaintiff was not a victim of an accident at work but became ill with idiopathic coxarthrosis. The duration of the sea voyage on which the plaintiff was employed was only two months, which is insufficient time to develop an occupational disease of this characteristic.
Defendant 2 joined the pleas submitted by defendant 1. He also claimed a lack of locus standi because there was no labour relationship between the plaintiff and defendant 2.
The Court of First instance admitted the objection to the lack of jurisdiction of the Romanian courts and dismissed the action. Following the plaintiff’s appeal, the Curtea de Apel (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) annulled the first instance decision and returned the case to the Court of First Instance for re-consideration. The Court of Appeal relied on Article 21(1)(b)(ii) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), allowing the plaintiff to bring the case ‘in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated’, i.e., the courts of Romania.
In a new trial, the Court of First Instance confirmed that the position of defendant 2 lacks the locus standi because the individual embarkation contract was concluded directly between the plaintiff and shipowner (i.e. defendant 1). Only the employer and employee can be parties to the dispute arising out of the employment contract, and defendant 2 must be considered only as a third party to that contract. The plaintiff’s action against defendant 2 was dismissed.
The Court of First Instance further analysed the provisions of the employment contract and the collective agreement of the ‘ITF (International Transport Workers’ Federation) Seafarers’. Based on these provisions and medical records, the Court of First Instance held that the plaintiff’s disease does not have the character of an occupational disease. This disease was a slowly developing degenerative disease without direct connection to the work performed onboard the ship during the employment contract in question. The possibility of coxarthrosis developing during a single sea voyage was excluded.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiff’s claim as unfounded.
(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) Codul Civil (Civil Code).