Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Jurisdiction over Individual Contracts of Employment

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

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

  • 555 Accesses

Abstract

In the framework of the EU law, the Brussels Regulation created a special jurisdictional regime in matters relating to contracts of employment, which protects the employee as a typically weaker party by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provided for. The concepts of ‘contract of employment’, ‘dispute relating to a contract’, ‘habitual place of work’ and ‘engaging business’ have given rise to numerous interpretational dilemmas; however, at least some of them have already been clarified in the European court’s case law. Although the new recast Brussels I Regulation does not bring far-reaching changes into the present regime, it has brought procedural protection of employees to an even higher level.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
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.

    See e.g. judgment of the Court of 19 January 1993, C-89/91, Shearson Lehman Hutton v TVB and the Recital No. 13 to the Brussels I Regulation.

  2. 2.

    Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. See the judgment of the Court of 26 May 1982, C-133/81, Ivenel v Schwab, and amendments of the Brussels Convention of 1989. The original version of the Brussels Convention did not contain any protective norms favourable for employees. See e.g. Stone (2010), p. 138.

  3. 3.

    Official Journal of the European Union, 20 December 2012, L 351/1.

  4. 4.

    The place where the work is habitually carried out as the main additional basis for jurisdiction in favour of employees has already been introduced in the Section 5 of the Brussels Convention. Therefore the case law of the ECJ relating to this Section of the Brussels Convention remains fully relevant even after the coming into force of the Brussels I Regulation. See judgment of the Austrian Supreme Court: OGH (AT) 17.11.2004—9 ObA 78/04t (e-database UNALEX workshop). The same will apply in regard to the new (recast) Brussels I Regulation once it starts applying in 2015 as well.

  5. 5.

    E.g., High Court—Queen’s Bench Division (UK) 07.11.2005—[2005] EWHC 2115—Et Plus SA & Ors ./. The Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. & Ors. (e-database UNALEX Workshop, available at: http://www.unalex.eu/Judgment/Judgment.aspx?FileNr=UK-158&FixLng=en. See also Stone (2010), p. 123; Giuliano and Lagarde (1980), p. 1.

  6. 6.

    For consumer disputes see e.g. the judgment of the Court of 19 January 1993, C-89/91, Shearson Lehmann Hutton, for a comprehensive overview of CJEU’s case law concerning jurisdiction in labour disputes see Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak delivered on 16 December 2010 in C-29/10, Heiko Koelzsch v. Luxembourg, paragraphs 53–58. The case relates to the determination of applicable law for labour contracts, but the findings are equally relevant for the issue of jurisdiction. For disputes relating to insurance contracts see the judgment of the Court of 13 July 2000, C-412/98, Group Josi v UGIC.

  7. 7.

    Until the Brussels I Recast came into force such safeguard was in place only for insurance and consumer disputes but not for disputes arising out of contracts of employment.

  8. 8.

    Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations.

  9. 9.

    The Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations of 19 June 1980.

  10. 10.

    Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2011, C-29/10, Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. The ECJ did not fully accept the views of AG Trstenjak (Opinion rendered on 16 December 2010). Trstenjak advocated the view that an automatic application of positions, adopted in the context of jurisdictional issues, is not appropriate for the determination of applicable rules, since the ratio legis of these rules is not entirely identical as well.

  11. 11.

    E.g. Kropholler (2006), Par. 2 at Art. 18.

  12. 12.

    Judgment of the Court of 3 July 1986, C-66/85, Lawrie-Blum v. Land Baden-Wurttenberg, For an overview of the ECJ’s case law on the notion of “employee”see: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=953&langId=en&intPageId=1221 (10.2.2013).

  13. 13.

    Judgment of the Court of 17 July 2008, C-94/07, Andrea Raccanelli v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften.

  14. 14.

    Judgment of the Court of 15 January 1987, C- 266/85, Hassan Shenavai v Klaus Kreischer.

  15. 15.

    Judgment of the Court of 17 July 2008, C-94/07, Andrea Raccanelli v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften.

  16. 16.

    Judgment of the Court of 15 January 1987, C- 266/85, Hassan Shenavai v Klaus Kreischer.

  17. 17.

    Tribunale Pesaro (IT) 11.07.2008—Rossi ./. P-D Glasseiden GmbH Oschatz (e-database: UNALEX workshop).

  18. 18.

    OGH (AT) 17.11.2004—9 ObA 78/04t (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  19. 19.

    Mankowski in Rauscher, Par. 6 at Art. 18, Schlosser, Par. 3 at Art. 18. Relevance of so called “de facto employment relationship” is (obiter dictum) recognized also in the Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2011, Case C-384/10, Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA (at Par. 46 of the judgment).

  20. 20.

    Judgment of the Court of 19 November.2002, C-188/00, Kurz v Land Baden-Württemberg; Judgment of the Court of 26 February 1992, C-3/90, Bernini v Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen.

  21. 21.

    Mankowski in Rauscher, Par. 8g at Art. 18.

  22. 22.

    Judgment of the Court of 3 July 1986, C-66/85, Deborah Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg.

  23. 23.

    Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003, C-47/02, Albert Anker and Others v Bundesrepublik Deutschland. The exclusion relates to “those posts which involve direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and in the discharge of functions whose purpose is to safeguard the general interests of the state or of other public authorities and which therefore require a special relationship of allegiance to the state on the part of persons occupying them and reciprocity of rights and duties which form the foundation of the bond of nationality”. Judgment of the Court of 3 July 1986, C-66/85, Lawrie-Blum v. Land Baden-Wurttenberg.

  24. 24.

    Hess holds that members of the board of a stock corporation can never be considered employees, whereas directors of a limited liability company only if they are not also partners in the company. Hess (2010), p. 300.

  25. 25.

    Mankowski in Rauscher, Par. 8a at Art. 18. For a restrictive approach: High Court (UK) 07.11.2005—ET Plus/The Channel Tunnel Group (e-database UNALEX workshop), which recalled that the purpose of the special jurisdictional protection is to protect the employee as a weaker party and held that this rationale excludes the possibility to invoke this protection in cases concerning liability of the companies’ directors for breach of fiduciary duty.

  26. 26.

    Mankowski in Rauscher, Par. 8a.-8e at Art. 18. The situation is different when the mother-company refers his employee to sit as a member of a board of directors for the daughter company. In such case, a contract of employment exists with the mother company.

  27. 27.

    Zakon o delovnih in socialnih sodiščih, Official Gazette, No. 2/2004.

  28. 28.

    The Brussels I Regulation applies only to individual and not to collective labour disputes. Of course, issues concerning the validity or interpretation of collective agreements can also arise in individual labour disputes (in the same manner as issues concerning the interpretation of law), if individual rights and obligations derive from such agreements. See e.g. the judgment of the Austrian Supreme Court, OGH (AT) 02.06.2009—9ObA144/08d (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  29. 29.

    Oberhammer in: Dasser and Oberhammer (2008), p. 121.

  30. 30.

    See the judgment of the Queens Bench Division (High Court, UK) Swithenbank Foods Limited v Bowers [2002] EWHC 2257, [2002] All ER (D) 530 (Jul).

  31. 31.

    Mankowski in Rauscher, Par. 2b at Art. 18.

  32. 32.

    Different view: Simmons in: Hausmann, Simmons,… ., Par. 10 at Art. 18.

  33. 33.

    Končina Peternel (2004), p. 279. Different view (obiter dictum): Portuguese Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (PT) 25.01.2012—1710/10.0TTPNF.P1.S1 (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  34. 34.

    Swithenbank Foods Limited v Bowers [2002] EWHC 2257 (Queen’s Bench Division, High Court). The case concerns the employer’s claim against the employee who allegedly conspired to injure the claimant’s contractual relations with a supplier.

  35. 35.

    Zakon o izumih iz delovnega razmerja, Official Gazette, No. 45/1995.

  36. 36.

    Zakon o avtorski in sorodnih pravicah, Official gazette, No. 21/1995.

  37. 37.

    The rule of exclusive jurisdiction applies to the issue of validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or a plea in objection. Judgment of the Court of 13 July 2006, C-4/03, Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG v Lamellen und Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG.

  38. 38.

    Mankowski in Rauscher, Par. 21 at Art. 19.

  39. 39.

    See Mankowski in Rauscher, Par. 21.-24 at Art. 19.

  40. 40.

    Judgment of the Court of 19 January 1993, C-89/91, Shearson Lehmann Hutton Inc. v TVB (assignment of a claim) and Judgment of the Court of 1 October 2002, C-167/00, Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Henkel (claim for injunction brought by a consumer protection organisation).

  41. 41.

    Judgment of the Court of 19 January 1993, C-89/9, Shearson Lehmann Hutton Inc. v TVB.

  42. 42.

    In the context of consumer disputes, such view is adopted by Staudinger in Rauscher, Par. 2 at Art. 15.

  43. 43.

    The domicile of the claimant, on the other hand, bears no relevance and neither does the citizenship of the parties.

  44. 44.

    For the interpretation of the notions of branch, agency or other establishment (in the context of Art. 5 of the Brussels I Regulation) see Judgment of the Court of 22 November 1978, C-33/78, Somafer SA v Saar-Ferngas AG: “The concept … . Implies a place of business which has the appearance of permanency, such as the extension of a parent body, has a management and is materially equipped to negotiate business with third parties so that the latter, although knowing that there will if necessary be a legal link with the parent body, the head office of which is abroad, do not have to deal directly with such parent body but may transact business at the place of business constituting the extension.” See also the Judgment of the Court of 9 December 1987, C-218/86, SAR Schotte GmbH v Parfums Rothschild SARL. Here it was held that under certain specific conditions even an independent legal entity may be considered as an “establishment”.

  45. 45.

    Judgment of the German Federal Labour Court, BArbG (DE) 01.07.2010—2 AZR 270/09 (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  46. 46.

    Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012, C-154/11, Ahmed Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria.

  47. 47.

    Ibidem.

  48. 48.

    Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast)’ COM (2010) 748/3.

  49. 49.

    Mankowski in Rauscher (2016), p. 595; Giroud et al. (2014), pp. 430–432.

  50. 50.

    See also Mankowski in Rauscher (2016), p. 595.

  51. 51.

    In addition, pursuant to Art. 21(1)II, if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated. Due to extensive construction of the CJEU of the “habitual place of work” (see judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2011, C-29/10, Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg), this alternative has lost (most of its) practical significance.

  52. 52.

    As a recent study shows, while in the area of employment law, a majority of 18 member states allow an employee to bring proceedings against a non-EU defendant at home, this number is reduced to only 12 member states in the area of consumer law. See Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment, Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Brussels, 14.12.2010 SEC(2010) 1547 final, 22 and 62-63, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/civil/docs/sec_2010_1547_en.pdf (last accessed 3 January 2016).

  53. 53.

    E.g. under Art. 57 of the Slovenian International Private Law and Procedure Act; Zakon o mednarodnem zasebnem pravu in postopku) it was sufficient to establish jurisdiction of a Slovenian court if a (part of the work was carried out (also) in Slovenia. Therefore—unlike in the Brussels I regime—in order to establish jurisdiction of a Slovenian court, Slovenia does not need to be the place where the major part of the work is carried out; it is sufficient if a non-negligible part of the work was carried out within the state. See e.g. the judgment of the Slovenian Appellate Labour and Social Court (VDS Pdp 423/2010, dated 21 April 2010.). This is to be contrasted to the CJEU’s understanding of the notion of “habitual place of work” in the Brussels I regime. The regulation cannot be interpreted as conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the courts of each Contracting State in whose territory the employee performed at least a part of his work (Judgment of the Court of 13 July 1993, C-125/92, Mulox IBC Ltd. v Hendrick Geels).

  54. 54.

    E.g. Art. 58 of the Slovenian International Private Law and Procedure Act.

  55. 55.

    The problem that the extension of territorial scope of the Brussels I Regime can also adversely affect interests of the weaker parties is not new. A similar problem existed (and was noted and discussed; Grušić 2012, at Chapter IV.A.) already with regard to the existing rule that the non-EU based employers and traders are deemed to be domiciled in the EU, provided that they have a branch, agency or establishment in one of the EU member states and the disputes arises out of its operations. This rule aimed to protect employees by guaranteeing that they will be able to commence proceedings against such non-EU employers in at least one Member State. But as Grušić observes, in practice, the rule extending the notion of the employer’s domicile more often than not actually disfavours employees since it shields non-EU employers with European ancillary establishments from the Member States’ traditional, often exorbitant rules of jurisdiction. Howbeit it should be stressed that under the described system concerning non-EU based defendants with subsidiaries or agencies within the EU, there was always at least one court in the EU which had jurisdiction—the court in the place of the deemed domicile.

  56. 56.

    Pohl (2013), pp. 109–114; Domej (2014), p. 523; Garcimartín Alférez and Sánchez Fernández (2013), p. 15; Scholz (2015), pp. 4–6; Bonomi in Dickinson and Lein (2015), p. 230; Grušić (2014).

  57. 57.

    Vlas in Magnus and Mankowski (2016), p. 116; Mankowski in Rauscher (2016), pp. 537 and 595; Giroud and Meier (2014), pp. 430–432; Van Lith in Dickinson and Lein (2015), p. 124, in this sense (although stressing that the issue remains controversial and calls for a reference to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling), Campuzano Díaz (2014), p. 16ff.

  58. 58.

    Pohl (2013), p. 111; Domej (2014), p. 523; Scholz (2015), p. 5.

  59. 59.

    Compare Campuzano Diaz (2014), p. 15.

  60. 60.

    Brussels, 14.12.2010 COM(2010) 748 final 2010/0383 (COD) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast).

  61. 61.

    Carbone and Tuo (2015), p. 7; Hay (2013), p. 2; Nielsen (2013), p. 512; Gulotta (2013), p. 623; Mankowski in Rauscher (2016), p. 257.

  62. 62.

    Nielsen (2013), p. 513; Vlas in Magnus and Mankowski (2016), p. 117; Dickinson in Dickinson and Lein (2015), p. 12; Mankowski in Rauscher (2016), p. 255; Campuzano Diaz (2014), p. 17.

  63. 63.

    See e.g. Dickinson in Dickinson and Lein (2015), p. 11 ff. Gulotta (2013), p. 623; Rauscher (2012), p. 3.

  64. 64.

    Discussion Paper Informal Justice and Home Affairs Ministers’ Meeting Copenhagen 26–27 January 2012 Session I (Justice) Brussels I-Regulation Access to Union courts in civil cases with third country defendants, Ministry of Justice, available at: http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/sites/default/files/media/Pressemeddelelser/pdf/2012/Discussion_paper_4_Brussels_I-Regulation.pdf.

  65. 65.

    Ibidem. See also Rauscher (2012), p. 7.

  66. 66.

    Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), (COM(2010)0748—C7-0433/2010—2010/0383(COD)), 15 October 2012, Committee on Legal Affairs, Rapporteur: Tadeusz Zwiefka.

  67. 67.

    See e.g. Carbone and Tuo (2015), p. 21.

  68. 68.

    The reflexive effect would mean that the member states courts would have to respect third states’ jurisdiction rules in case where, if the reverse or the reflex situation occurred, the member states’ courts would assume their jurisdiction as exclusive (or, as in case of protected contracts “quasi exclusive”). See in detail: Carbone and Tuo (2015), p. 24; Gsell (2014), p. 437.

  69. 69.

    Gsell (2014), p. 437.

  70. 70.

    Recast of the Brussels I regulation: towards easier and faster circulation of judgments in civil and commercial matters within the EU, Press Release, Brussels, 6 December 2012, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_PRES-12-483_en.htm (last accessed 3 January 2016).

  71. 71.

    Compare Hay (2013), p. 5.

  72. 72.

    Accord Campozano Diaz (2014), p. 16.

  73. 73.

    The need to establish jurisdiction of at least one court in the EU is, pursuant to the Commission’s view, necessary prerequisite for effective enforcement of EU mandatory consumer protection law. See e.g. Gsell (2014), p. 443; Gulotta (2013), p. 627.

  74. 74.

    Discussion Paper Informal Justice and Home Affairs Ministers’ Meeting Copenhagen 26–27 January 2012 Session I (Justice) Brussels I-Regulation Access to Union courts in civil cases with third country defendants, Ministry of Justice, available at: http://www.justitsministeriet.dk/sites/default/files/media/Pressemeddelelser/pdf/2012/Discussion_paper_4_Brussels_I-Regulation.pdf.

  75. 75.

    See e.g. Kropholler (2006), Art. 19, Par. 2.

  76. 76.

    Judgment of the Court of 22 May 2008, C-462/06, Glaxosmithkline, Laboratories Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard. A case based on similar facts was decided by the French Cour de cassation (FR) 16.12.2008—04-44.1713 (e-database UNALEX workshop). Of course, if the employee carries out the work for all employees in the same place, a joinder of defendants in one claim is still possible—following the criteria of Art. 19 of the Brussels I Regulation. See judgment of the French Cour de cassation (FR) 02.02.2011—09-66709 (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  77. 77.

    Judgment of the Court of 22 May 2008, C-462/06, Glaxosmithkline, Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard.

  78. 78.

    E.g. Krebber (2009), p. 409; Grušić (2012), p. 94.

  79. 79.

    Already in its Report and Green Paper of 21st April 2009 (COM(2009), 174 final, at section 3.8.2. and COM(2009) 175 final, at Q.8, the Commission contemplated the possibility of extending jurisdiction over co-defendants pursuant to Art. 6(1) to employment matters. See Stone (2010), p. 141.

  80. 80.

    Pursuant to Art. 8/1 of the 1215/2012 Regulation a jurisdiction for co-defendants is available if the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings; Art. 8/1 of the Brussels I Regulation.

  81. 81.

    For a comprehensive overview of ECJ’s case law concerning jurisdiction in labour disputes see Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak delivered on 16 December 2010 in C-29/10, Heiko Koelzsch v. Luxembourg, paragraphs 53–58. The case relates to the determination of applicable law for labour contracts, but the findings are equally relevant for the issue of jurisdiction.

  82. 82.

    Judgment of the Court of 13 July 1993, C-125/92, Mulox IBC Ltd v Hendrick Geels.

  83. 83.

    Landesarbeitsgericht Köln (DE) 19.09.2011—2 Sa 414/11 (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  84. 84.

    Judgment of the Court of 9 January 1997, C-383/95, Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v Cross Medical Ltd.

  85. 85.

    Judgment of the Court of 27 February 2002, C-37/00, Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd.

  86. 86.

    Judgment of the Court of 15 January 1987, C- 266/85, Hassan Shenavai v Klaus Kreischer.

  87. 87.

    Judgment of the Court of 10 April 2003, C-437/00, Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA, Betriebsteil Alenia Aerospazio.

  88. 88.

    Ibidem.

  89. 89.

    Judgment of the Court of 13 July 1993, C-125/92, Mulox IBC Ltd v Hendrick Geels.

  90. 90.

    Judgment of the Court of 13 July 1993, C-125/92, Mulox IBC Ltd v Hendrick Geels. In the Rutten case, the ECJ defined the relevant place as the one “where the employee has established the effective centre of his working activities and where, or from which, he in fact performs the essential part of his duties vis-à-vis his employer”.

  91. 91.

    Judgment of the Court of 9 January 199, C-383/95, Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v Cross Medical Ltd. It was a subject to controversy if this rule should apply also in cases when the employee clearly spends more working time in another country, not in the country where he has an office, from which he organizes the work. Such a solution was proposed by AG Jacobs, but opposed by the Commission. The ECJ did not take a specific stand on the matter, however from its reasoning it can be concluded that it preferred the “office approach”. See also the judgment of the Corte d’Appello Venezia (IT) 26.04.2005—307/05—Koinis Angelic/Vision System LTD (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  92. 92.

    Judgment of the Court of 13 July 1993, C-125/92, Mulox IBC Ltd v Hendrick Geels.

  93. 93.

    Judgment of the Court of 27 February 2002, C-37/00, Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd.

  94. 94.

    See e.g. Mankowski in Rauscher, Par. 6 at Art. 19 and the judgment of the Austrian Supreme Court; OGH (AT) 10.07.2008—8ObA33/08y (e-database UNALEX workshop). A “relative majority” is thus not sufficient. Following that approach it would not suffice to determine that e.g. Slovenia is the place, where the employee habitually carries out his work, if he works here 40% of his working time, whereas he spends the remaining working time in Italy and Austria for 30% in each of them.

  95. 95.

    Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2011, C-29/10, Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg.

  96. 96.

    Judgment of the Court of 27 February 2002 C-37/00, Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd. Such a case was dealt with by the Austrian Supreme court in the judgment OGH (AT) 04.08.2009—9ObA52/08z (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  97. 97.

    Ibidem.

  98. 98.

    Stone (2010), p. 140.

  99. 99.

    Judgment of the Court of 27 February 2002, C-37/00, Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd. See also the judgment of the French Cour de cassation (FR) 31.03.2009—08-40.367 (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  100. 100.

    Judgment of the Court of 10 April 2003, C-437/00, Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA, Betriebsteil Alenia Aerospazio. The ECJ held that in a dispute between the employee and the first employer, the place where the employee performs his obligations to the second employer can be regarded as the place where he habitually carries out his work when the first employer, with respect to whom the employee’s contractual obligations are suspended, has, at the time of the conclusion of the second contract of employment, an interest in the performance of the service by the employee to the second employer. The existence of such an interest must be determined on a comprehensive basis, taking into consideration all of the circumstances of the case (such as: connection between both companies; was the possibility of a “transfer” already foreseen in the first contract; did the first “employer” retain any control over the performance of the worker’s activities with the second employer; can it influence the duration of the work for the second employer).

  101. 101.

    Kropholler (2006), Par. 7 at Art. 19.

  102. 102.

    Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations.

  103. 103.

    Nuyts, p. 45.

  104. 104.

    Judgment of the Court of 27 February 2002, C-37/00, Herbert Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd.

  105. 105.

    Against such possibility Mankowski in Rauscher, Par. 17 at Art. 19. In favour: Kropholler (2006), Par. 11 at Art. 19 and Schlosser (2003), at Art. 19.

  106. 106.

    Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2011, Case C-384/10, Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA.

  107. 107.

    Ibidem.

  108. 108.

    Ibidem.

  109. 109.

    Ibidem. Before this decision of the European Court, the legal writing and some national courts adopted a different approach. It was held to be decisive, which organisational unit follows the performance of the contract and effects payments etc., whereas on the other hand it was held to be irrelevant which unit of the business prepared a draft contract of employment. Landesarbeitsgericht Mainz (DE) 17.09.2009—2 Sa 322/09 (e-database UNALEX workshop). See also Mankowski in Rauscher, Par. 19 at Art. 19.

  110. 110.

    Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2011, Case C-384/10, Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA.

  111. 111.

    Ibidem.

  112. 112.

    Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2011, C-29/10, Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg.

  113. 113.

    Ibidem.

  114. 114.

    Ibidem.

  115. 115.

    Grušić (2013), p. 173 et seq.

  116. 116.

    Hess (2010), p. 301; Mayr (2011), p. 175.

  117. 117.

    Zanobetti (2011), p. 351.

  118. 118.

    Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2011, C-29/10, Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg.

  119. 119.

    Ibidem.

  120. 120.

    Landesarbeitsgericht Köln (DE) 19.09.2011—2 Sa 414/11 (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  121. 121.

    Judgment of the German Federal Labour Court, BArbG (DE) 27.01.2011—2 AZR 646/09 (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  122. 122.

    Judgment of the French Cour de cassation (FR) 11.04.2012—11-17096 11-17097 (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  123. 123.

    See the Giuliano-Lagarde Report, p. 26. See also Grušić (2013), p. 181; Zanobetti (2011), p. 351.

  124. 124.

    See Zanobetti (2011), p. 351 et seq.; Mankowski (1989), p. 489 et seq.

  125. 125.

    Judgment of the Court of 11 December 2007, C-438/05, International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union v Viking Line.

  126. 126.

    See in detail: Zanobetti (2011), pp. 348–351, Simmons in: Simmons and Hausmann (2012), Par. 26 at Art. 19.

  127. 127.

    Both treaties establish obligations of the state of the flag to ensure effective control over e.g. labour conditions aboard the ship and the manning of the ship (see Art. 94 of the UNCLOS and Art. 5 of the ILO Convention (see http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C186).

  128. 128.

    About different views in the legal writing see in detail: Zanobetti (2011), pp. 351–352.

  129. 129.

    Such view was adopted by the German Federal Labour Court; BArbG (DE) 24.09.2009—8 AZR 306/08 (e-database UNALEX workshop) concerning seamen, working on a ferry boat under the Greek flag on a scheduled route between ports in Germany and Finland.

  130. 130.

    Diggins v Condor Marine Crewing Services Ltd., Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2009] EWCA Civ 1133, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1133.html. See also Grušić, p. 181. It should be noted that the Brussels I Regulation did not apply ratione personae in this case. The defendant was a company with a seat in Guersney, which is (although an UK territory) not considered to be a part of the EU.

  131. 131.

    Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2011, C-384/10, Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA.

  132. 132.

    Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2011, C-384/10, Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA and Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak delivered on 8 September 2011.

  133. 133.

    For such conclusion see Grušić (2013), p. 182.

  134. 134.

    Compare Par. 63 of the Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2011, C-384/10, Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA.

  135. 135.

    Ibidem, Par. 56–62. The European court engaged on commenting the issue of habitual work sua sponte merely because it wanted to express its doubts as to whether it is at all necessary for the national court to invoke the second option of Art. 19(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (engaging business).But the European court was not authorized to answer questions which it was not asked nor to assume that the referring court erred in its application of law and determination of facts.

  136. 136.

    For such conclusion see Grušić (2013), p. 182.

  137. 137.

    The Luxembourg Maritime register is mentioned in the judgment and this would imply that it also determines the flag of the ship. Nevertheless this is not clear. The Register is mentioned only in the context of law chosen by the parties (as the parties have chosen the Luxembourg law, the Law of 9 November 1990 establishing a Luxembourg Public Maritime Register was referred to). It is not clear whether the case actually also involves a ship, entered into this register (and thus flying the Luxembourg flag). It could however be a relevant factor whether this was a flag of an EU member state, geographically involved in the transport in the North sea (e.g. the Netherlands or Germany), or a flag of convenience of an EU member state (e.g. Greece or Malta) or a genuine flag of convenience (e.g. Liberia or the Bahamas). Neither did the AG make any reference to authorities in legal writing as to which criteria are appropriate to determine the jurisdiction and applicable law for the seafarers’ employment contract.

  138. 138.

    Compare e.g. Simmons in: Simmons and Hausmann (2012), Par. 27–28 at Art. 19.

  139. 139.

    It should be noted that in practice a vast majority of individual labour disputes concerns claims of employees against employers, not the other way around. See Grušić (2012), p. 100 et seq.

  140. 140.

    Hess (2010), p. 302.

  141. 141.

    For example, if an employee, domiciled in Germany, brings the proceedings in Slovenia where the work was habitually carried out, the employer can bring a counter-claim in the same court (although this is not a court in a country of the employee’s domicile).

  142. 142.

    In Slovenia, a rule derogating the jurisdiction in the place of the defendant’s domicile is provided for disputes arising out of employment related industrial property rights (Art. 8 of the Labor and Social Courts Act: članak 8 ZDSS-1; the jurisdiction is vested solely in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court.

  143. 143.

    Judgment of the Court of 4 June 2009, C-243/08, Pannon GSM Zrt. v Erzsébet Sustikné Győrfi.

  144. 144.

    See e.g. Audiencia Provincial Alicante (ES) 22.03.2005 (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  145. 145.

    Jenard Report, Art. 12.

  146. 146.

    Nevertheless in such a case, the prevailing opinion is that the jurisdiction clause is not invalid in toto. The employee (but not the employer) may still invoke it. Simmons in: Simmons and Hausmann (2012), Para. 19 at Art. 21.

  147. 147.

    Schlosser (1979) Report, Para. 161a.

  148. 148.

    The Judgment of the Czech Supreme court, Nejvyšší soud (CZ) 22.07.2009 (electronic database unalex).

  149. 149.

    Judgment of the Court of 03 July 1997, C-269/95, Benincasa v. Dentalkit Srl.

  150. 150.

    Court of Appeal (Civil Division) England and Wales (UK) 12.07.2007—[2007] EWCA Civ 723—Samengo–Turner & Ors ./. J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Limited & Ors and Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (DE) 17.03.2008—14 Sa 1312/07 (e-database UNALEX workshop).

  151. 151.

    Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012, C-154/11, Ahmed Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria.

  152. 152.

    The Slovenian Arbitration Act (Zakon o arbitraži, Official Gazette, No. 45/2008) in principle allows for arbitration as a method of resolution of individual labour disputes, whereby it is also permissible for the arbitration agreement to be concluded prior to materialization of the dispute. Arbitration clauses in employment contracts are thus not necessarily void. On the other hand, the Act provides for certain protective mandatory rules for arbitration in labour (and consumer) disputes, such as more restrictive norms concerning the form of the arbitration agreement, protective norms concerning the seat, place of hearings and language of arbitration, concerning costs and a wider court’s scrutiny over the arbitration award in setting aside proceedings…). An important restriction is imposed also in the Labour Relations Act (Zakon o delovnih razmerjih, Official gazette, No. 42/2002 et seq.). Pursuant to Art. 205 of this act, an arbitration agreement for individual labour disputes is admissible only insofar arbitration is foreseen already in the applicable collective agreement. This of course does not mean that a collective agreement as such can provide for a mandatory arbitration. But a reference to arbitration in the collective agreement is a necessary precondition for individual employers and employees to be able to enter arbitration agreements.

  153. 153.

    Schack (2006), Par. 488; Schlosser (2003), Art. 15, Para. 1, Caravaca/Gonzales in: Magnus, Mankowski, Art. 24, Para. 24, OLG Koblenz (DE) 08.03.2000 (e-database UNALEX workshop), opposite view Nielsen in: Magnus, Mankowski, Art. 17, Para. 15.

  154. 154.

    Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2010, C-111/09, Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas.

  155. 155.

    See e.g. Grušić (2011), p. 953.

  156. 156.

    See e.g. Paragraph 504 of the German ZPO (for Amtsgerichte).

  157. 157.

    E.g. in Slovenia the defendant must, in order not to be in default, file a written defence plea on merits and there is neither any oral communication between the court and the defendant beforehand nor does the court give, upon serving the claim, any written hints and observations, except the instruction to file a defence plea and the warning that a judgment on default can be rendered if the defendant fails to comply with this instruction); see Art. 277 of the Civil Procedure Act (Zakon o pravdnem postopku).

  158. 158.

    Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2010, C-111/09, Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas.

  159. 159.

    Ibidem. However, the CJEU adds, that it is always open to the court seised to ensure, having regard to the objective of the rules on jurisdiction resulting from Sections 3 to 5 of Chapter II of the Brussels I Regulation, which is to offer stronger protection of the party considered to be the weaker party, that the defendant being sued before it in those circumstances is fully aware of the consequences of his agreement to enter an appearance.

  160. 160.

    See also Lazić (2014), p. 109.

  161. 161.

    For such view: Nielsen in Magnus and Mankowski (2007), p. 325.

  162. 162.

    In the relevant parts Art. 45(1) reads as follows: “On the application of any interested party, the recognition of a judgment shall be refused: [… ] if the judgment conflicts with: (i) Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Chapter II where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee was the defendant […].

  163. 163.

    See e.g. Grušić (2011), p. 947.

  164. 164.

    The EU Commission, ‘Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the proposal of the Brussels I Regulation’, COM (1999) 348 final, Brussels, 14.07.1999, p. 23, available at: http://www.statewatch.org/semdoc/assets/files/commission/COM-1999-348.pdf.

  165. 165.

    Geimer and Schütze (2010), Art. 35 at 47 and Art. 16 at 16.

  166. 166.

    Compare judgment of the Slovenian Appellate Labour and Social Court (VDS Pdp 423/2010, dated 21 April 2010.) concerning the work of a tourist guide in a bus tour.

  167. 167.

    A different approach has been adopted in regard to territorial jurisdiction, pursuant to Art. 8 of the Labour and Social Courts Act; here only the employee may use this additional basis for jurisdiction (“If the claimant is the employee…”).

References

  • Campuzano Díaz B (2014) Las normas de competencia judicial internacional del Reglamento 1215/2012 y los demandados domiciliados fuera de la UE: Análisis de la reforma. Revista electronica de estudios internacionales 28:1–35. Available at: dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4956064.pdf. Last accessed 15 Jan 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbone SM, Tuo CE (2015) Non-EU states and Brussels I: new rules and some solutions for old problems. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP) (1):5–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasser F, Oberhammer P (2008) Kommentar zum Lugano-Übereinkommen. Bern

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A, Lein E (2015) The Brussels I regulation recast. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Domej T (2014) Die Neufassung der EuGVVO – Quantensprünge im europäischen Zivilprozessrecht. Rabels Zeitschrift fuer auslaendisches und internationales Privatrecht 78(3):508–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcimartín Alférez FJ, Fernández SS (2013) El nuevo Reglamento Bruselas I: qué ha cambiado en el ámbito de la competencia judicial. Revista española de derecho europeo (48):9–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Geimer R, Schütze R (2010) Europaeisches Zivilverfahrensrecht. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroud S, Meier N, Rodriguez R (2014) Le règlement Bruxelles I bis, un modèle pour une nouvelle convention de Lugano ? In: Guinchard E (ed) Le nouveau règlement Bruxelles I bis. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 419–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliano M, Lagarde P (1980) Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Off J C 282:1–50. (cited Giuliano-Lagarde Report), available at: http://aei.pitt.edu/1891/ (last accessed 31 Dec 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Grušić U (2011) Submission and protective jurisdiction under the Brussels I regulation. Comm Mark Law Rev 43(3):947–955

    Google Scholar 

  • Grušić U (2012) Jurisdiction in employment matters under Brussels I: a reassessment. Int Comp Law Q 61(1):91–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grušić U (2013) Should the connecting factor of the “engaging place of business” be abolished in European private international law. Int Comp Law Q 62(Part 1):173–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grušić U (2014) Preparing for Brussels I recast—employment. In: Lexis-Nexis Blog. Available at: http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/dr/preparing-for-brussels-i-recast-employment/ (posted: 6 November 2014, last accessed: 15 Jan 2016)

  • Gsell B (2014) Entwicklungen im Europäischen Verbraucherzuständigkeitsrecht – Reform der EuGVO und Rechtsprechung des EuGH zum Merkmal des “Ausrichtens” in Art. 15 Abs. 1 lit. c EuGVO. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess 127(4):431–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulotta CM (2013) L’estensione della giurisdizione nei confronti dei datori di lavoro domiciliati all’estero: il caso mahamdia e il nuovo regime del regolamento Bruxelles i-bis. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 49(3):619–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay P (2013) Notes on the European Union’s Brussels-I “recast” regulation. Eur Leg Forum 1:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess B (2010) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenard. Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters signed at Brussels, 27 September 1968. Official Journal C 59, 5 March 1979 (cited Jenard Report)

    Google Scholar 

  • Končina Peternel M (2004) Podlage za odškodninsko odgovornost delodajalca. Delavci in delodajalci 2–3:277–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebber S (2009) Einheitlicher Gerichtsstand für die Klage eines Arbeitnehmers gegen mehrere Arbeitgeber bei Beschäftigung in einem grenzüberschreitenden Konzern. Praxis des internationalen Privat und Verfahrensrechts 19:409–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropholler J (2006) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht, 8. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazić V (2014) Procedural justice for “weaker parties” in cross-border litigation under the EU regulatory scheme. Utrecht Law Rev 10(4):100–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) (2007) Brussels I regulation. Sellier, Vlašim, p 325

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U, Mankowski P (2016) European commentaries on private international law, volume I, Brussels ibis regulation. Verlag Otto Schmidt, Köln

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mankowski P (1989) Arbeitsverträge von Seeleuten im deutschen IPR. Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 53:487–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr P (2011) Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht. Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen PA (2013) The new Brussels I regulation. Comm Mark Law Rev 50(2):503–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuyts A. ‘Study on Residual Jurisdiction: General Report’, (Review of the Member States’ Rules concerning the “Residual Jurisdiction” of their courts in Civil and Commercial Matters pursuant to the Brussels I and II Regulations), Service Contract with the EU Commission JLS/C4/2005/07-30-CE)0040309/00-37. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_residual_jurisdiction_en.pdf (last accessed 31 Dec 2014)

  • Pohl M (2013) Die Neufassung der EuGVVO – im Spannungsfeld zwischen Vertrauen und Kontrolle. IPrax 33(2):109–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauscher C (2012) Die Brüssel I Verordnung und ihre Reform. In: König B, Mayr PG (eds) Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht in Österreicht III; 10 Jahre Brüssel I-Verordnung. Manz, Wien, pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauscher C (2016) Europaeisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht – Kommentar, Bruessel Ia-VO, 4th edn. Verlag Otto Schmidt, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Schack H (2006) Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht, 4. Aufl. München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser P (1979) Report on the Convention on the Association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice, signed at Luxembourg, 9 October 1978. Off J C 59:71–151. (cited: Schlosser Report)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser P (2003) EU-Zivilprozessrecht, Kommentar, 2. Aufl. München

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz F (2015) Alles neu im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht? Ecolex (1):4–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons T, Hausmann R (eds) (2012) Brüssel I-Verordnung, Unalex Kommentar. IPR Verlag, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone P (2010) EU private international law, 2nd edn. Elgar European Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanobetti A (2011) Employment contracts and the Rome Convention, the Koelzsch Ruling of the European Court of Justice, Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, br. 2, str. 338-358; http://e-revistas.uc3m.es/index.php/CDT/article/view/1340 (last accessed 31 Dec 2014)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Aleš Galič

Authors
  1. Aleš Galič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aleš Galič .

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

Galič, A. (2018). International Jurisdiction over Individual Contracts of Employment. 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_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02219-2_7

  • 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