Tribunalul Constanta; 2019-12-17; 5437/118/2019
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:RO:TBCTA:2019:001.003203
Date: 2019-12-17
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Romania

82019RO1217(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in an employment dispute examined by the Tribunalul Constanţa (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
An individual domiciled in Romania (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied before the Court of First Instance seeking payment of the outstanding part of remuneration for work as a doctor carried out during the Corona crisis for a company domiciled in Malta (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
The defendant objected to the Romanian jurisdiction, alleging that the work contract contained a prorogation of the jurisdiction in favour of the Maltese courts. Then, under Article 3 of the Rome I Regulation (1) (freedom of choice the governing law) and Article 7(5) and Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), the Romanian courts lack the jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claim. In response, the plaintiff stated that the jurisdiction clause is inapplicable according to Section 5 of Chapter II of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), i.e., the provisions concerning jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment, which excludes the application of a jurisdiction clause.
The Court of First Instance confirmed the existence of the jurisdiction clause. However, it held that such jurisdiction is not exclusive when the dispute concerns matters relating to individual employment contracts. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its Case C-154/11 (3) explained that an agreement on jurisdiction concluded before a dispute arises could not be applied exclusively and thus prohibit the employee from bringing proceedings before the courts which have jurisdiction under Articles 20 and 21 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). Article 21(1)(b)(i) provides that ‘an employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued, in another Member State, in the courts for the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so‘. In Case C-64/12 (4), the CJEU provided that as far as the ‘factors suggestive of a connection with a particular country’ are concerned, ‘the national court must also take account of all the circumstances of the case, such as the parameters relating to salary determination and other working conditions’.
In the present case, the recruitment for the work was carried out in Romania. The plaintiff received instructions concerning the job during a meeting in Romania, and the work was carried out on a mobile offshore drilling rig in Romanian territorial waters. The transport to and from the rig was carried out from Romania too. All salary-related contributions were paid to the Romanian state. For all these reasons, and following Article 21(1)(b)(i) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the Court of First Instance held the defendant’s plea of a lack of jurisdiction of the Romanian courts as unfounded.
The plaintiff’s claim was upheld, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the outstanding salary entitlements.
(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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 July 2012, Ahmed Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, C‑154/11, ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2012:491.
(4) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 September 2013, Anton Schlecker v Melitta Josefa Boedeker, C‑64/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:551.