EUPillar LAG Rheinland-Pfalz, 17.9.2009

Summary

The parties argued on a termination of an employment contract. It was doubtful whether German courts had international jurisdiction. The first instance labour court stated that German courts didn’t have international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 19 Brussels I. The Regional Labour Court held that the employing business within the meaning of Art. 19 no. 2 (b) Brussels I was the business that organizationally supervised the performance of the contract by the employee. Main criteria in this field were salary payments and instructions of employees. In the present case the instruction was carried out by the German branch. In consequence the court assumed the international jurisdiction of German courts. Aspects of consumer protection speak in favour of the court’s interpretation of Art. 19 Brussels I: the employer otherwise would be free to choose another branch as employing business in order to influence the place of jurisdiction. On the other hand, the CJEU stated in Voogsgerd (C-384/10) that the relevant place was the place of business which engaged the employee and the place where the employee is connected to by his actual employment. It would have to be useful to make a preliminary request in order to obtain an answer to the question whether this CJEU jurisdiction also applied to the present case.