Motiv de casare de ordine publică. Necompetenţa internaţională a instanţelor din România. Existenţa unui element de extraneitate. Forul de necesitate

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

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...