The plea of general lack of jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine a case and lack of territorial jurisdiction

JURISPRUDENȚĂ COMENTATĂ ȘI ADNOTATĂ

Abstract

The plea of lack of general jurisdiction is groundless, since the plaintiff requested the court to confirm the absolute nullity of a contract to which the defendant M is a party, together with the defendant Company A. Therefore, the latter defendant was not sued solely on the ground that it is established in Romania and in order to establish, in that way, the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, whereas that jurisdiction would have been vested in the courts of Bulgaria, where the defendant M is established.

2. Insolvency proceedings were opened against the plaintiff, with the opening of file no. [...] of the Constanta Court. From the verification of the provisions of Article 11 para. (1) of Law No 85/2006, it is found that the action brought by the plaintiff does not fall within any of the categories referred by law to the jurisdiction of the syndic judge. The court is not notified to adjudicate an action for the nullity of a fraudulent legal act of the debtor but of an allegedly fraudulent act concluded between third parties, so that jurisdiction is determined according to the ordinary law. In those circumstances, the objection of lack of functional jurisdiction of the Court of Constanţa, Civil Division II is also unfounded.

3. The plea that the Court of Constanta has no territorial jurisdiction is well founded. The provisions of Article 107 para. (1) of the Civil Procedure Code represent the common law on territorial jurisdiction, while Art. 112 para. (1) of the Civil Procedure Code in matters of multiple defendants. Since the parties have not indicated the incidence of any case of alternative territorial jurisdiction that would determine the jurisdiction of the Court of Constanta, the provisions set out above apply and the plea is to be admitted.