Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Grušic, Uglješa (2012)
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
This article examines the rules of jurisdiction in employment matters of Brussels I. It focuses on a paradox in that these rules aim to protect employees jurisdictionally, but in fact fail to accord employees a more favourable treatment when they need it most, namely when they appear as claimants. The article argues that the current rules fail to achieve the objective of employee protection, examines the reasons for this, proposes certain amendments that would improve the existing rules, and thereby engages in the debate surrounding the forthcoming review of Brussels I.The author was awarded the 2012 ICLQ Young Scholar Prize for this article.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 26 Case 14/76 De Bloos v Bouyer [1976] ECR 1497.
    • 27 Case 12/76 Tessili v Dunlop [1976] ECR 1473.
    • 28 Ivenel (n 25) para 15. 29 ibid paras 13-15, 19.
    • 30 ibid para 20; see also Case 266/85 Shenavai v Kreischer [1987] ECR 239.
    • 31 This was confirmed in Case C-125/92 Mulox IBC Ltd v Geels [1993] ECR I-4075, paras 12-16. 32 1988 Lugano Convention, art 17(5).
    • 33 Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations done at Rome on 19 June 1980 [1998] OJ C27/34 (Rome Convention). Art 6 of the Rome Convention provided that an employment contract was governed, in the absence of choice, by the law of the country in which the
    • 38 The rules applicable in these two types of dispute had been contained in separate, selfcontained sections (3 and 4 of Title II) since the adoption of the Brussels Convention in 1968. Under this instrument, consumers and insured persons could normally be sued only in the courts of their domicile (arts 11(1) and 14(2)), and there was a rule extending the notion of the insurer's domicile (art 18(2)). See European Commission, 'Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the proposal of the Brussels I Regulation', COM (1999) 348 final, 17.
    • 39 Pocar Report [2009] OJ C319/1, paras 85-90.
    • 40 AT von Mehren, 'Theory and Practice of Adjudicatory Authority in Private International Law: A Comparative Study of the Doctrine, Policies and Practices of Common- and Civil-Law Systems' (2002) 295 Recueil des Cours 9, 194-96.
    • 44 eg Regulation (EC) 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) [2008] OJ L177/6 (Rome I), arts 8 (safeguarding the application of the mandatory employment rules of the objectively applicable law) and 9 (giving preference over the applicable law to the overriding mandatory provisions of the forum and, under certain conditions, even of the country of performance); Second Restatement of the Conflict of Laws, paras 6, 196.
    • 45 See also P Nygh, Autonomy in International Contracts (Clarendon Press 1999) 165.
    • 46 See Mulox (n 31), Opinion of AG Jacobs, paras 26-28; see also Hess, Pfeiffer and Schlosser (n 15) paras 350-51.
    • 47 Brussels I, art 20(1). According to art 59, domicile of employees is to be determined by reference to the Member States' national laws. Under the Brussels and 1988 Lugano Conventions an employer was not confined to suing the employee in the courts of the latter's domicile.
    • 48 Schlosser Report [1979] OJ C59/71, para 161.
    • 49 Jenard Report (n 18) 33.
    • 55 A Junker, 'Vom Brüsseler Übereinkommen zur Brüsseler Verordnung: Wandlungen des Internationalen Zivilprozessrechts' (2002) 48 Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 569, 575.
    • 56 Brussels I, art 35(1).
    • 57 Commission, 'Explanatory Memorandum' (n 38) 23.
    • 58 See eg B Ancel, 'The Brussels I Regulation: Comment' in P Sarcevic and P Volken (eds), Yearbook of Private International Law, vol 3 (Sellier European Law Publishers 2001) 101, 106- 07; GAL Droz and H Gaudemet-Tallon, 'La transformation de la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968 en Règlement du Conceil concernant la competence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des decision en matière civile et commerciale' (2001) 90 Revue critique de droit international privé 601, 648; J Hill and A Chong, International Commercial Disputes: Commercial Conflict of Laws in English Courts (4th edn, Hart 2010) 455; AAH van Hoek, 'Case Note on Krombach v Bamberski' (2001) 38 CMLR 1011, 1025; Junker (n 55) 577; P Mankowski, 'Article 35' in U Magnus and P Mankowski (eds), Brussels I Regulation (Sellier European Law Publishers 2007) 601, 616.
    • 71 Work carried out on fixed or floating installations positioned on or above the part of the continental shelf adjacent to a Member State for the purposes of prospecting and exploiting its natural resources is regarded as work in the territory of that Member State: Weber (n 53).
    • 72 Six Constructions (n 53); Shell International Ltd v Liem [2004] ILPr 18 (French Cour de Cassation, 21 January 2004); Cruz-Real-Jenard Report (n 37) para 23(e); T Kruger, Civil Jurisdiction Rules of the EU and their Impact on Third States (OUP 2008) 168, 176.
    • 73 In Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA (n 53), the ECJ addressed a related question of whether the habitual place of work under a contract of employment with employer B was relevant in a dispute arising under a contract of employment with employer A, where employers A and B were related, and the employment with employer A was suspended owing to the employee's transfer to employer B. The Court held that the habitual place of work under the second contract of employment was relevant provided that employer A had an interest in the employee's work for employer B.
    • 74 (n 31). 75 ibid paras 20-23.
    • 76 ibid para 24. 77 ibid para 25.
    • 86 ibid.
    • 87 Mulox (n 31) para 24 (emphasis added). See also Jan Voogsgeerd (n 53) para 33.
    • 88 ibid para 25. 89 Rutten (n 53) para 23 (emphasis added).
    • 90 See Mulox (n 31), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 33; Rutten (n 53), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 34. See also Pitzolu v Banca Gesfid SA [2009] ILPr 27 (Italian Corte di cassazione, 9 January 2008). 91 (n 53).
    • 92 ibid paras 50-52 (emphasis added). See also Re Employment in More Than One State (5 AZR 141/01) [2003] ILPr 33 (German Bundesarbeitsgericht, 29 May 2002).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok