EUPillar LAG Berlin-Brandenburg, 23.03.2011

Summary

The parties argued about the termination of an employment contract. The plaintiff was employed as a driver in the embassy in Berlin. The court raised the question whether German courts had international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 18, 19 Brussels I. The court made a preliminary request to the CJEU regarding the questions: (1) Is an embassy of a third state which is based in a Member State a ‘branch, agency or other establishment’ within the meaning of Art. 18 (2) Brussels I? (2) If so, can a prorogation of jurisdiction that was made before the litigation be valid when there was chosen the jurisdiction of a state that doesn’t take part in the Brussels I Regulation supposed that in that case the jurisdiction given pursuant to Art. 18, 19 Brussels I would be skipped? The CJEU answered the questions in 2012 (C-154/11) (see paragraph 67 of the judgment): (1) Art. 18 (2) Brussels I must be interpreted as meaning that an embassy of a third State situated in a Member State is an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of that provision, in a dispute concerning a contract of employment concluded by the embassy on behalf of the sending State, where the functions carried out by the employee do not fall within the exercise of public powers. It is for the national court seised to determine the precise nature of the functions carried out by the employee. (2) Art. 21(2) Brussels I must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement on jurisdiction concluded before a dispute arises falls within that provision in so far as it gives the employee the possibility of bringing proceedings, not only before the courts ordinarily having jurisdiction under the special rules in Articles 18 and 19 of that regulation, but also before other courts, which may include courts outside the European Union.