EUPillar LAG Rheinlandpfalz, 29.10.2010

Summary

The claimant sued the first defendant, a company seated in Belgium, for which he carried out deliveries as a lorry driver, and the second defendant, who is the husband of the managing director of the first defendant and who has a domicile at the seat of the first defendant, before the Labour Court of Koblenz for payment of wages. The point of departure for the deliveries was a warehouse of the company in Germany. The defendant challenged the international jurisdiction of the court. The first instance dismissed the action as inadmissible. The claimant lodged an appeal to the Regional Labour Court of Mainz. The Regional Labour Court rejected the judgment of the prior instance. It held that the international jurisdiction of German courts arose out of both Art. 5(1)(b) Brussels I Regulation and Art. 18(2) Brussels I Regulation. The contracts to transport goods were accepted in Germany. The delivery contracts were also transmitted to the claimant by the second defendant there. The term of 'other' establishment within the meaning of Art. 18 (2) Brussels I Regulation must be given a broad and independent interpretation. This was in accordance with the Regulation's purpose. It was unbalanced if a party who enjoyed the benefits of participating in the legal order of a State could raise the objection that he was not subject to jurisdiction in that State but rather could only be sued in the State of his domicile. The activity of the claimant in the Member State of employment suffices in order to establish international jurisdiction. In contrast to the jurisdiction of the Federal Labour Court that has been criticised by German scientific literature, the term of 'other' establishment has to be interpreted widely to grant a sufficient protection of the employee as the weaker party. Following this reasoning, it cannot be doubted that a warehouse can be regarded as 'other establishment' within the meaning of Art. 18 (2).