Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Law Applicable to Employment Contracts Under the Rome I Regulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transnational, European, and National Labour Relations

Part of the book series: Europeanization and Globalization ((EAG,volume 4))

Abstract

The author is analysing the structure and particular operation of the provisions determining the law applicable to individual employment contracts under the EU legislation. From the restricted party autonomy to the default conflict provisions pointing to the law of the place where the work is habitually carried out and marginalising the connection to the place of business through which the employee is engaged, the protection of the employee as the weaker party seems to be the pursued objective. However, there are other interests that may play an important a role in this context, especially when it comes to public policy and overriding mandatory provisions that by definition are not limited to protection of individual private interests but are focused on the interests of the particular state.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6. The same notions appear in secondary EU law, to be precise, in Section 5 of the Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1, and Article 9 of the Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 40, which both together with the Rome I Regulation have to be harmoniously interpreted.

  2. 2.

    OJ L 266, 1980, p. 1, OJ C 334, 2005, p. 1—consolidated version.

  3. 3.

    OJ C 115, p. 47. OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 47—consolidated version.

  4. 4.

    According to the CJEU case law, the essential characteristic of the employment relationship is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he/she receives remuneration. See e.g. judgment of the CJEU of 23 March 1982, D.M. Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, C-53/81, EU:C:1982:105; judgment of the CJEU of 3 July 1986, Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg, C-66/85, EU:C:1986:284; judgment of the CJEU of 26 February 1992, M. J. E. Bernini v Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen, C-3/90, EU:C:1992:89; judgment of the CJEU of 17 July 2008, Andrea Raccanelli v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV., C-94/07, EU:C:2008:425.

  5. 5.

    Schlachter (2013), no. 4.

  6. 6.

    Vicente (2011), p. 530.

  7. 7.

    On party autonomy in the Rome I Regulation see more in Leible (2008), pp. 61–75; Mankowski (2008), pp. 134 et seq.

  8. 8.

    For discussion on economic rationale in having party autonomy and its restrictions see e.g. Ruhl (2007), pp. 153–183; McParland (2015), p. 288.

  9. 9.

    Pretura di Milano, 5 January 1995, RIDI 1996, 503.

  10. 10.

    Giuliano and Lagarde (1980), pp. 1–50, p. 17.

  11. 11.

    Thus also Bosnić (1999), p. 107. See also the French case mentioned in Jessellin-Gall (1995), p. 373, where the contract on exploitation of the intellectual property rights in USA and Canada was held to be governed by French law based on the parties’ tacit choice, which was established because the contract was in French language and contained several provisions fully corresponding to the French law.

  12. 12.

    For instance, the Recital 12 of the Rome I Regulation states that an agreement between the parties to confer on one or more courts or tribunals of a Member State exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes under the contract should be one of the factors to be taken into account in determining whether a choice of law has been clearly demonstrated. This departs from the principle qui elegit judicem elegit ius which was embodied in the provision of Article 3 of the proposal on the Rome I Regulation where the selection of the exclusively competent court in a certain country automatically meant that parties tacitly chose the law of the same country. See Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), Brussels, 15.12.2005, COM(2005) 650 final 2005/0261 (COD), <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0650en01.pdf>.

  13. 13.

    Article 3(2) of the Rome I Regulation.

  14. 14.

    Thus also Mauer and Sadtler (2008), pp. 544–547, especially p. 545.

  15. 15.

    The reference here is made to the different meaning of the term ‘protective provisions’ (zaštitne odredbe) than the meaning used by some Croatian legal scholars such as Klasiček (2000), pp. 23–32, especially pp. 27 et seq.; Id. (2006), pp. 689–714, especially pp. 703 et seq. In use of the term ‘protective provisions’ (zaštitne odredbe), this author fails to clearly differentiate between the true ‘protective provisions’ (zaštitne odredbe) which are simple ius cogens, and ‘overriding mandatory provisions’ or ‘Internationally mandatory provisions’ which, besides being ius cogens are also regarded as crucial by a country for safeguarding its public interests, such as its political, social or economic organisation, to such an extent that they are applicable to any situation falling within their scope, irrespective of the law otherwise applicable to the contract under this Regulation. More on the overriding mandatory provisions see infra Sect. 4.

  16. 16.

    See Rec. 35 of the Rome I Regulation.

  17. 17.

    [2007] EWHC 2720 (QB), para. 55.

  18. 18.

    McParland (2015), p. 653.

  19. 19.

    Bonomi (1998), p. 179.

  20. 20.

    Rinze (1994), pp. 412–430, especially pp. 421–423.

  21. 21.

    Grundmann (2001), p. 520.

  22. 22.

    Cour de Cassation, 1.2.201715-23723.

  23. 23.

    Article 8(2) of the Rome I Regulation.

  24. 24.

    Vicente (2011), pp. 530–531.

  25. 25.

    OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1. See more in Basedow (2006), p. 16.

  26. 26.

    See Sect. 4 infra.

  27. 27.

    Recital 36 of the Rome I Regulation.

  28. 28.

    Mankowski (2009), pp. 185–186.

  29. 29.

    Max Planck Institute for Foreign and Private International Law (Working Group on Rome I) (2004), p. 94.

  30. 30.

    Mankowski (2009), pp. 191–193.

  31. 31.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 March 2011, Koelzsch C-29/10, EU:C:2011:151.

  32. 32.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 March 2011, Koelzsch C-29/10, EU:C:2011:151, para. 13–29.

  33. 33.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 March 2011, Koelzsch C-29/10, EU:C:2011:151, para. 29.

  34. 34.

    OJ C 27, 26.1.1998, p. 1 (consolidated text).

  35. 35.

    OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1.

  36. 36.

    CJEU, judgment of 13 July 1993, Mulox C-125/92, EU:C:1993:306, paras. 21–23.

  37. 37.

    CJEU, judgment of 9 January 1997, Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v Cross Medical Ltd. C-383/95, EU:C:1997:7, para. 23.

  38. 38.

    CJEU, judgment of 27 February 2002, Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd. C-37/00, EU:C:2002:122, para. 42.

  39. 39.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 March 2011, Koelzsch C-29/10, EU:C:2011:151, paras. 47–49.

  40. 40.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 March 2011, Koelzsch C-29/10, EU:C:2011:151, para. 42.

  41. 41.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 December 2011, Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA. C-384/10, EU:C:2011:842.

  42. 42.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 December 2011, Voogsgeerd C-384/10, EU:C:2011:842, para. 21.

  43. 43.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 December 2011, Voogsgeerd C-384/10, EU:C:2011:842, para. 28.

  44. 44.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 December 2011, Voogsgeerd C-384/10, EU:C:2011:842, paras. 33–35.

  45. 45.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 December 2011, Voogsgeerd C-384/10, EU:C:2011:842, para. 37.

  46. 46.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 December 2011, Voogsgeerd C-384/10, EU:C:2011:842, para. 38. In that regard, Mr. Voogsgeerd claims that, in the course of the carrying out of his work, he had no contact with Navimer, but that he was obliged to report for boarding at Antwerp with Naviglobe, which gave him instructions.

  47. 47.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 December 2011, Voogsgeerd C-384/10, EU:C:2011:842, paras. 39–40.

  48. 48.

    Cour de Cassation, 1.2.2017—15-23723.

  49. 49.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 September 2013, Anton Schlecker v Melitta Josefa Boedeker, C-64/12, EU:C:2013:551.

  50. 50.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker, C-64/12, EU:C:2013:551, paras. 32 and 34.

  51. 51.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker, C-64/12, EU:C:2013:551, para. 40.

  52. 52.

    Mankowski (2009), pp. 193–196.

  53. 53.

    See supra Sect. 3.1.

  54. 54.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 December 2011, Voogsgeerd C-384/10, EU:C:2011:842, paras. 47 and 50.

  55. 55.

    Mankowski (2009), p. 178.

  56. 56.

    Schlachter (2013), no. 17.

  57. 57.

    CJEU, Judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker, C-64/12, EU:C:2013:551, para. 41.

  58. 58.

    See, e.g. McParland (2015), pp. 680–681.

  59. 59.

    See more in Kunda (2007b); Id. (2008), pp. 254–282.

  60. 60.

    Mankowski (2009), pp. 202–204.

  61. 61.

    Corte di Cassazione, 09.05.2007—10549.

  62. 62.

    Cour d’appel de Luxembourg, 24 September 1998, unpublished, cited in Wilderspin (2003), p. 129.

  63. 63.

    Serco Limited v. Lawson, Botham (FC) v. Ministry of Defence, Crofts and others v. Veta Limited and others and one other action, [2006] UKHL 3.

  64. 64.

    5 January 1995, RIDI 1996, 503.

  65. 65.

    Landesarbeitsgericht Köln, 06.11.1998—11 Sa 345/98.

  66. 66.

    Article 3 of the Directive provides that the Member States shall ensure that, whatever the law applicable to the employment relationship, the undertakings guarantee workers posted to their territory the terms and conditions of employment covering the following matters: (a) maximum work periods and minimum rest periods; (b) minimum paid annual holidays; (c) the minimum rates of pay, including overtime rates, not including the supplementary occupational retirement pension schemes; (d) the conditions of hiring-out of workers, in particular the supply of workers by temporary employment undertakings; (e) health, safety and hygiene at work; (f) protective measures with regard to the terms and conditions of employment of pregnant women or women who have recently given birth, of children and of young people; (g) equality of treatment between men and women and other provisions on non-discrimination.

  67. 67.

    Mankowski (2009), p. 184.

  68. 68.

    Loc. cit.

  69. 69.

    CJEU, judgment of 23 November 1999, Criminal proceedings against Jean-Claude Arblade and Arblade & Fils SARL (C-369/96) and Bernard Leloup, Serge Leloup and Sofrage SARL (C-376/96), joined cases C-369/96 and C-376/96EU:C:1999:575. This judgment has been recited by the CJEU, confirming the adherence to it, in its judgment of 19 January 2006, Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany, C-244/04, EU:C:2006:49.

  70. 70.

    The rules in question concerned the obligations to pay its workers the minimum remuneration applicable to their activities fixed by the collective labour agreement in force in the host Member State, to pay in relation to each worker employers’ contributions in respect of ‘timbres-intempéries’ and ‘timbres-fidélité’, and to issue each worker with an individual record; to draw up labour regulations, a special staff register and, in respect of each worker deployed, an individual account; and to arrange for the social documents (staff register and individual accounts) relating to the workers deployed in the host Member State where the works are carried out to be kept and retained at the residence, in that host Member State, of a natural person who is to keep those documents as its agent or servant.

  71. 71.

    CJEU, judgment of 23 November 1999, Arblade, EU:C:1999:575, para. 31 This, of course, if the legislation cannot be taken into account by the EU law in terms of the exceptions to the economic freedoms expressly provided for by the TFEU.

  72. 72.

    Lefranc (2005), pp. 439–440.

  73. 73.

    Para. 30 of the judgment in Arblade.

  74. 74.

    Such questions include: May this ruling have bearing over the private international law? Or, more precisely, may the definition of mandatory rules contained in the judgment on the EU freedoms be relevant for the purpose of explaining the concept of internationally mandatory rules? See more in Kunda (2007a), pp. 210–222, especially p. 215; Bonomi (2008), pp. 285–300, especially 287 et seq.

  75. 75.

    In one of the more recent cases concerning the freedom of movement for workers laid down in Article 45 of the TFEU, CJEU judgment of 16 April 2013, Anton Las v PSA Antwerp NV, C-202/11, EU:C:2013:239, the CJEU held that the company established in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium cannot be bound by the provisions of the Belgian law obliging them to draft cross-border employment contracts in Dutch, otherwise the contact would be null and void, because such restriction is regarded as disproportionate.

  76. 76.

    Vicente (2011), p. 533.

References

  • Basedow J (2006) European private international law of obligations and internal market legislation – a matter of coordination. In: Erauw J, Tomljenović V, Volken P (eds) Liber Memorialis Petar Šarcević: universalism, tradition and the individual. Sellier European Law Publishers, München, pp 13–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi (1998) Le norme imperative nel diritto internazionale privato, Considerazioni sulla Convenzione europea sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali del 19 giugno 1980 nonché sulle legge italiana e svizzera di diritto internazionale privato, Publications de l’Institut suisse de droit comparé. Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi (2008) Overriding mandatory provisions in the Rome I regulation on the law applicable to contracts. Yearb Priv Int Law 10:285–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosnić (1999) Hrvatsko međunarodno privatno pravo: obrazloženje i komentar zakona, Knjiga I. Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Splitu, Split

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliano M, Lagarde P (1980) Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Off J C 282:1–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann S (2001) The structure of European contract law. Eur Rev Priv Law 4:505–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessellin-Gall M (1995) Les contrats d’exploration du droit de propriété littéraire et artistique. GLN Joly, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Klasiček (2000) Prisilni propisi u međunarodnom privatnom pravu. Pravni vjesnik 16(3–4):23–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Klasiček D (2006) Autonomija u međunarodnom privatnom pravu – novije tendencije. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu 56(2–3):689–714

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunda I (2007a) Defining internationally mandatory rules in European private international law of contract. Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht 4(5):210–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunda I (2007b) Internationally mandatory rules of a third country in European contract conflict of Laws: the Rome Convention and the proposed Rome I Regulation. Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Rijeci, Rijeka

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunda (2008) Međunarodno prisilna pravila: određenje pojma u europskom ugovornom međunarodnom privatnom pravu. In: Kostić-Mandić (ed) V. konferencija međunarodnog privatnog prava: Međunarodno privatno pravo i zaštita stranih investitora, 18.-20. listopada 2007., Bečići, Crna Gora. Pravni fakultet u Podgorici, Podgorica, pp 254–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefranc (2005) Le spécificité des règles de conflit de lois en droit communautaire dérive (aspects de droit privé). Revue critique de droit international privé 94(3):412–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Leible (2008) Choice of the applicable law. In: Cashin-Ritaine E, Bonomi A (eds) Le nouveau règlement européen “Rome I” relatif à la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles. Genève, pp 61–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski (2008) Die Rom I-Verordnung – Änderungen im europäischen IPR für Schuldverträge. Internationales Handelsrecht 8(4):133–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski (2009) Employment contracts under Article 8 of the Rome I Regulations. In: Ferrari F, Leible S (eds) Rome I Regulation: the law applicable to contractual obligations in Europe. Sellier European Law Publishers, München, pp 171–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauer R, Sadtler S (2008) Die Vereinheitlichung des internationalen Arbeitsrechts durch die EG-Verordnung Rom I. Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 54(8):544–547

    Google Scholar 

  • Max Planck Institute for Foreign and Private International Law (Working Group on Rome I) (2004) Comments on the European Commission’s Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention into a Community instrument and its modernization. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 68(1):1–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McParland (2015) The Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinze J (1994) The scope of the party autonomy under the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. J Bus Law 38:412–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl G (2007) Party autonomy in the private international law of contracts: transatlantic convergence and economic efficiency. In: Gottschalk, Michaels, Rühl, von Hein (eds) Conflict of laws in a globalized world, pp 153–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlachter (2013) Erfurter Kommentar zum Arbeitsrecht, 13th edn. Verlag C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente M (2011) Libertés européennes et droit international privé (à la lumière du Traité de Lisbonne). Revue hellenique de droit international 64:523–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilderspin M (2003) The Rome Convention: experience to date before the courts of contracting states. In: Lando O, Magnus U, Novak-Stief M (eds) Angleichung des materiellen und des internationalen Privatrechts in der EU/Harmonisation of substantive and international private law. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp 111–142

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Ivana Kunda

Authors
  1. Ivana Kunda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivana Kunda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hochschule für öffentliche Verwaltung und Finanzen Ludwigsburg, University of Applied Sciences, Ludwigsburg, Germany

    Gerald G. Sander

  2. General Court of EU, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Vesna Tomljenović

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Nada Bodiroga-Vukobrat

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kunda, I. (2018). Law Applicable to Employment Contracts Under the Rome I Regulation. In: Sander, G., Tomljenović, V., Bodiroga-Vukobrat, N. (eds) Transnational, European, and National Labour Relations. Europeanization and Globalization, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02219-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02219-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02218-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02219-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation