High Court of Cassation and Justice decided that the systematic interpretation of art. 210 of Law no. 62/2011 on social dialogue by Art. 12 Civil Procedure Code, with the provisions of art. 216 of Law no. 62/2011, that, if the lawsuit claims cover labor disputes, jurisdiction is alternative (either the place where the applicant resides or the workplace thereof), the applicant being the one to make the choice between several equally competent courts. In this case, the court found that the plaintiff’s domicile at the time the court is seised was in Bucharest and the place of performance of the service, as shown in the individual employment contract, is still in Bucharest. It follows then, that the Bucharest Court was the only court with jurisdiction in the proceedings, irrelevant fact that on the closing date individual labor contract, the complainant had another home. (Decision no. 411 of 11 February 2015 Section I pronounced the Civil High Court of Cassation and Justice covering negative conflict of jurisdiction)
:: The Source: JURIDICE.ro
