Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Decizia nr. 5724/2011 AI generated

Labor conflict territorial jurisdiction assigned to Constanța Tribunal under mandatory Labor Code rule.

Case Number Decizia nr. 5724/2011
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Romania (RO)
Decision Date
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court of Cassation and Justice resolved a negative jurisdictional conflict by assigning the case to the Constanța Tribunal, which prevailed, and the decision is irrevocable. The dispute was a labor conflict in which the claimant’s action had been filed with a different court, but the territorial jurisdiction was contested between two tribunals. The Court held that under the mandatory terms of Article 284(2) of the Labor Code, territorial jurisdiction in labor conflicts is exclusive, not alternative, and lies solely with the court in whose district the claimant has his domicile, residence, or seat, and parties cannot choose another court. Since the claimant’s identity document showed his domicile in Constanța County, the Court, pursuant to Article 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, established jurisdiction in favor of the Constanța Tribunal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

art. 22 C. proc. civ, Art. 284 alin. (2) C. muncii; Labor conflict territorial jurisdiction assigned to Constanța Tribunal under mandatory Labor Code rule: The dispute was a labor conflict in which the claimant’s action had been filed with a different court, but the territorial jurisdiction was contested between two tribunals. The Court held that under the mandatory terms of Article 284(2) of the Labor Code, territorial jurisdiction in labor conflicts is exclusive, not alternative, and lies solely with the court in whose district the claimant has his domicile, residence, or seat, and parties cannot choose another court. Since the claimant’s identity document showed his domicile in Constanța County, the Court, pursuant to Article 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, established jurisdiction in favor of the Constanța Tribunal.

Keywords

AI generated
labor jurisdictional conflict territorial jurisdiction negative conflict of jurisdiction conflict rule Civil Procedure Code domicile

Cited Legislation

AI generated
art. 22 C. proc. civ
Used to settle the negative conflict of jurisdiction and designate the competent court.
Art. 284 alin. (2) C. muncii
Basis for establishing exclusive territorial jurisdiction in labor disputes, determining the competent court.
AI generated
Decizia nr. 1682/2024
Labor dispute jurisdiction fixed to plaintiff's chosen court at filing; reassignment to Dâmbovița Tribunal supersedes later declinations.
Decizia nr. 2750/2011
Territorial jurisdiction for labor conflicts: priority of Labor Code domicile rule over abolished entity-seed rule
Decizia nr. 267/2026
Exclusive territorial jurisdiction for labor disputes under Labor Code and Brussels I Regulation
Decizia nr. 1191/2022
Territorial jurisdiction for labor conflicts: claimant's domicile or workplace per Labor Code and Law 62/2011
Decizia nr. 524/2019
Negative jurisdictional conflict in labor dispute: exclusive territorial competence based on plaintiff's domicile

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
Art. 284 alin. (2) C. muncii

Basis for establishing exclusive territorial jurisdiction in labor disputes, determining the competent court.

Art. 22 C. proc. civ.

Used to settle the negative conflict of jurisdiction and designate the competent court.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Asupra conflictului negativ ivit între Tribunalul Botoșani și Tribunalul Constanța având ca obiect conflict de muncă în condițiile art. 284 alin. (2) C. muncii Înalta Curte reține următoarele:

Din termenii imperativi ai art. 284 alin. (2) C. muncii, rezultă că în domeniul conflictelor de muncă, competența teritorială nu este alternativă, ci revine exclusiv instanței în a cărei circumscripție teritorială reclamantul își are domiciliul sau reședința, ori, după caz, sediul.

Rezultă că textul prin termenii imperativi pe care îi întrebuințează a instituit în cazul conflictelor de muncă, un caz de competență exclusivă, astfel că părțile nu au posibilitatea de a stabili competența altei instanțe.

Or, în cauză așa cum rezultă din chiar actul de identitate al reclamantului domiciliul acestuia este în satul P.A., județul Constanța, motiv pentru care competența de soluționare a cauzei aparține Tribunalului Constanța.

Astfel, în temeiul art. 22 C. proc. civ. urmează a se stabili competența de soluționare a cauzei în favoarea Tribunalului Constanta.

PENTRU ACESTE MOTIVE

ÎN NUMELE LEGII

D E C I D E

Stabilește competența de soluționare a cauzei în favoarea Tribunalului Constanța.

Irevocabilă.

Pronunțată în ședință publică, astăzi 4 iulie 2011.