EUPillar Liber v. s.a. Robinetterie Service - 503/N/2005

Summary

On 4 April 2003, Mr. Liber entered into an employment contract with SA Robinetterie Service, a French company. His function was “agency manager in Belgium”, charged with developing the Belgian subsidiary of the company. By registered letter of 16 April 2004, SA Robinetterie Service terminated the employment contract for gross misconduct. Mr. Liber sued Robinetterie Service in compensation, for the total sum of 34,505.88 EUR. As to the jurisdiction of the court, the defendant argues that the French courts are competent. The employment contract provides that Mr. Liber would carry out his work both in France and in Belgium. If the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated has jurisdiction. Mr. Liber, on the other hand, argues that he did habitually carry out his work in Belgium. The Court considers that the notion of “habitually carrying out his work” in a particular country does not mean that the employee must permanently work in that state. Only the main activities must be carried out in one state, while the employee may occasionally carry out work in a different state. The employment contract provides that Mr. Liber will “carry out his work both in France and Belgium, but may be led to carry out commercial efforts abroad”. That clause does not indicate which proportion of the work is carried out in those two countries. However, the nature of Mr. Liber’s responsibilities allows the Court to deduce that his habitual activity was located in Belgium. He was “agency manager in Belgium” and a Belgian subsidiary, SPRL Robinetterie Service was created, which has its seat in Hennuyères, at only a few miles from Mr. Liber’s home. Mr. Liber’s presence there was required to oversee the subsidiary’s organization and bind new clients to the subsidiary. It is also where commercial and accounting documents are kept. Even though he probably has to go the parent company’s seat in France from time to time, to give account of his activities, this is not his main occupation. The fact that the employees of the Belgian subsidiary worked on a French building site must be regarded as a casual fact which does not change the habitual nature of the work carried out in Belgium. Therefore, the Belgian courts have jurisdiction. SHORT CRITIQUE The Court applies Art. 19 Brussels I correctly.