Leonardo Enrique Flores Ramos claimed wages and other labour compensations from Pequería Nores Marís SL and Agencia Marina Tranship SA. The defendants opposed the claim and alleged the lack of the Court's jurisdiction. The first instance Court rejected this defence, and ordered Pesquería Nores Marís SL to pay the claim. This defendant appealed the decision before the Court of Labour Appeals (CLA), alleging a lack of jurisdiction based on three arguments. First, that the employment contract was signed on board the ship while it was on international waters. Second, the seafarer was a citizen of the Republic of Peru, and his domicile stated in the contract was in that country. Third, the shipowner had its domicile in Spain, and the ship was flagged in Spain as well. The defendant argued that the competent jurisdiction was Spain.

Held: The CLA affirmed the decision.

The CLA held that it was a personal action of transnational character that required the Court to consider the application of any international treaty. No treaty was signed between Uruguay and Spain governing this matter. The appellant alleged the application of the United Nation Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ratified by both nations, which establishes rules related to the determination of ships' nationalities and provides for the flag State's jurisdiction over the technical and social aspects of the ship (art 94). The CLA held that this Convention did not apply, as it does not govern conflicts between a seafarer and his former employer. Hence, according to art 7 of Law No 19246 on Maritime Commerce, in the absence of any treaty, the 1940 Treaty on International Commercial Navigation Law, signed in Montevideo, must determine the applicable law and jurisdiction on maritime law matters. This treaty establishes that the law of the flag governs labour contracts, the ship's internal regime and the rights and obligations of the master and the crew members. The civil conflicts between the master and the crew related to their functions on board the ship must be decided by the authorities of the flag State. These provisions suppose the applicable law and the competent jurisdiction is the law of the flag, namely Spain.

However, the CLA considered that the interpretation of any provision of the internal regime cannot be disconnected from the whole legal system, including local and international rules and the general and particular principles of law applicable to the case. This is an even more critical aspect when the strict interpretation of the rule may affect a fundamental human right of effective access to justice which the whole State and the judiciary must warrant. It must be remembered that the right to access to justice evolved from a mere declaration on the possibility to defend the individual rights to a State's responsibility of providing a public service protecting the individual, collective and diffuse rights. Access to justice can be considered as the most basic human right in a modern egalitarian legal system attempting to secure, and not only to proclaim such rights. As the Inter-American Court of Justice has stated, this right has reached the status of ius cogens, meaning that it is an imperative rule of law that does not admit exclusions from the interpretation of other rules and produce obligations erga omnes for the States. The interpretation proposed by the appellant obliges an employee, who executed a contract in Uruguay, embarked, disembarked and collected his salary in Montevideo, to litigate his claim in Spain. Such an interpretation is illogical, regressive and disregards the rights of access to justice, effective protection of rights and principles of international labour law and international private law. Principles of labour law establish that in the necessity to determine whether a local or an international rule applies, the adjudicator must choose the most favourable to the employee. In the interpretation of procedure rules, priority must be given to the effective protection of substantive rights. The CLA concluded that the contract was also executed in Montevideo, where the salary was paid. The defendant had a domicile in this jurisdiction through its agent; and, if the plaintiff opted for these Courts it must be understood that they are the most appropriate to exercise the fundamental human right of access to justice, and the local laws are the most favourable for this claim.