PIL instrument(s)
Brussels I
Case number and/or case name
II PK 77/12 (Sąd Najwyższy)
Details of the court
Poland, Third Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 2
Paragraph 1
Article 5
Paragraph 5
Article 18
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Article 19
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph b
Article 20
Paragraph 1
Article 59
Paragraph 1
Date of the judgement
29 October 2012
Appeal history
None
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
The Polish Plaintiffs sued their employer The courts of first and second instance declared that they had no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Brussels I Regulation, as a result, the plaintiffs lodged a cassation appeal. The Polish Supreme Court stated under Art. 19 par. 1 of the Brussels I Regulation an employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled. In order to determine where the party is domiciled the court should apply Art. 59 or 60 of the Brussels I Regulation. The appellate court erroneously failed to notice that the defendant was a natural person, and therefore the principal place of business under Art. 60 par. 1 letter c was irrelevant Instead, Art. 59 par. 1 should have been applied. According to this Article, in order to determine whether a party is domiciled in the Member State whose courts are seised of the matter, the court shall apply its internal law, which in this case would be Polish law. According to the Polish civil law, the domicile of a natural person is the place where that person stays with the intention of residing permanently. The Polish Supreme Court pointed out that the provisions of Brussels I Regulation do not specify which moment is relevant to determine the domicile of a party i.e. the moment of conclusion of the agreement or the moment when the court is seised. The Polish Supreme Court decided that the moment when the court is seised is relevant. Independently of this, it was emphasised that the jurisdiction of Polish courts can be established on the basis of Art. 19 par. 2 letter a of the Brussels I Regulation. According to this provision an employer can be sued in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so. The plaintiffs initially carried out their work in Poland and subsequently they moved to Germany. The Polish Supreme Court stated that the fact that the employees had carried out their work in Germany should be, primarily, considered as delegation of workers. The Polish Supreme Court cited the judgment of the CJEU concerning the determination of the place where the employee discharges his obligations towards his employer (C-37/00).

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team