Ground for quashing of public order. Lack of international jurisdiction of Romanian courts. Existence of cross-border implications. Forum necessitatis

JURISPRUDENȚĂ COMENTATĂ ȘI ADNOTATĂ

Abstract

Given that the statement of claim has cross-border implications, the merits judge should have verified the jurisdiction of the Romanian court before ruling on the case, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1,071 of the Civil Procedure Code. Noting that this had not been done, the second appeal court relied on the international jurisdiction of the Romanian courts as a ground for annulment, which it found to be well founded.

One of the applications concerns social security rights and falls within the field of social security. The Regulation on jurisdiction and cooperation in civil and commercial matters No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of Europe does not apply, since the application is not made in a matter relating to rights which the parties may dispose of, nor does it belong to one of the areas which attract the exclusive personal or property jurisdiction of the Romanian courts, just as an application relating to a maintenance obligation cannot be qualified in order to establish the preferential jurisdiction of the Romanian courts.

The Romanian court cannot be considered as a forum necessitatis due to the non-fulfilment of the condition relating to the impossibility or difficulty of seizing the foreign court.