JURISDICTION IN EMPLOYMENT MATTERS UNDER BRUSSELS I: A REASSESSMENT
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2012
This article examines the rules of jurisdiction in employment matters of Brussels I. It focuses on a paradox in that these rules aim to protect employees jurisdictionally, but in fact fail to accord employees a more favourable treatment when they need it most, namely when they appear as claimants. The article argues that the current rules fail to achieve the objective of employee protection, examines the reasons for this, proposes certain amendments that would improve the existing rules, and thereby engages in the debate surrounding the forthcoming review of Brussels I.
- International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 91 - 126
- Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2012
1 Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters  OJ L12/1 (Brussels I or Regulation). The rules of jurisdiction in employment matters of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters done at Lugano on 30 October 2007  OJ L147/1 (2007 Lugano Convention) are identical to those Brussels I and are not analysed specifically. The relevant provisions of the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968  OJ L27/1 (Brussels Convention) and the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters done at Lugano on 16 September 1988  OJ L319/9 (1988 Lugano Convention) are mentioned only to the extent to which they differ from those of Brussels I. This article does not deal with the jurisdictional rules of the Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services  OJ L18/1.
2 Brussels I, art 19(1).
5 ibid art 18(1). Although, in theory, claimant employers can also invoke this jurisdictional rule, this is practically impossible, since employees do not have ‘branches, agencies or other establishments’.
10 Case C–462/06,  ECR I–3965.
12 The rules of jurisdiction in employment matters of the Brussels and 1988 Lugano Conventions were not set out in separate, self-contained sections. Hence, art 6(1) of these Conventions was an available basis of jurisdiction in employment disputes: see Carasset-Marillier v Salahadin Imam et autres, French Cour de cassation, 13 January 1998 <http://curia.europa.eu/common/recdoc/convention/en/1998/27-1998.htm>.
13 See Frodl, S, ‘Rechtssicherheit vor Arbeitnehmerschutz?’ (2009) 21 Österreichische Juristenzeitung 935Google Scholar; Harris, J, ‘The Brussels I Regulation, the ECJ and the Rulebook’ (2008) 124 LQRev 523Google Scholar; Jault-Seseke, F, ‘GlaxoSmithKline v Rouard’ (2008) 97 Revue critique de droit international privé 853Google Scholar; Krebber, S, ‘Einheitlicher Gerichtsstand für die Klage eines Arbeitnehmers gegen mehrere Arbeitgeber bei Beschäftigung in einem grenzüberschreitenden Konzern’ (2009) 19 Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 409Google Scholar.
14 Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast)’ COM (2010) 748/3, 11–12.
15 B Hess, T Pfeiffer and P Schlosser, ‘Report on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States’ (September 2007) <http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_application_brussels_1_en.pdf>.
18 Jenard Report  OJ C59/1, 24.
21 Case 25/79  ECR 3423. See also Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Jacqmain  ECR 1671.
22 Sanicentral (n 21) para 3.
24 See arts 12 and 15 of the 1968 version of the Brussels Convention regarding the requirements for validity of jurisdiction agreements in insurance contracts and instalment sales and loans contracts.
25 Case 133/81  ECR 1891.
26 Case 14/76 De Bloos v Bouyer  ECR 1497.
27 Case 12/76 Tessili v Dunlop  ECR 1473.
28 Ivenel (n 25) para 15.
31 This was confirmed in Case C–125/92 Mulox IBC Ltd v Geels  ECR I–4075, paras 12–16.
32 1988 Lugano Convention, art 17(5).
33 Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations done at Rome on 19 June 1980  OJ C27/34 (Rome Convention). Art 6 of the Rome Convention provided that an employment contract was governed, in the absence of choice, by the law of the country in which the employee habitually carried out his work in performance of the contract. If the employee did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, the employment contract was governed by the law of the country in which the place of business through which the employee was engaged was situated (emphasis added).
34 Jenard–Möler Report  OJ C189/57, paras 37, 38, 40.
35 See Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, Convention de Lugano: Convention concernant la compétence judiciaire et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale faite à Lugano le 16 septembre 1988 (Schulthess Polygraphischer Verlag 1991) 164–65Google Scholar.
36  OJ L285/1.
37 Cruz–Real–Jenard Report  OJ C189/35, para 27(d).
38 The rules applicable in these two types of dispute had been contained in separate, self-contained sections (3 and 4 of Title II) since the adoption of the Brussels Convention in 1968. Under this instrument, consumers and insured persons could normally be sued only in the courts of their domicile (arts 11(1) and 14(2)), and there was a rule extending the notion of the insurer's domicile (art 18(2)). See European Commission, ‘Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the proposal of the Brussels I Regulation’, COM (1999) 348 final, 17.
39 Pocar Report  OJ C319/1, paras 85–90.
40 AT von Mehren, , ‘Theory and Practice of Adjudicatory Authority in Private International Law: A Comparative Study of the Doctrine, Policies and Practices of Common- and Civil-Law Systems’ (2002) 295 Recueil des Cours 9Google Scholar, 194–96.
44 eg Regulation (EC) 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)  OJ L177/6 (Rome I), arts 8 (safeguarding the application of the mandatory employment rules of the objectively applicable law) and 9 (giving preference over the applicable law to the overriding mandatory provisions of the forum and, under certain conditions, even of the country of performance); Second Restatement of the Conflict of Laws, paras 6, 196.
46 See Mulox (n 31), Opinion of AG Jacobs, paras 26–28; see also Hess, Pfeiffer and Schlosser (n 15) paras 350–51.
47 Brussels I, art 20(1). According to art 59, domicile of employees is to be determined by reference to the Member States’ national laws. Under the Brussels and 1988 Lugano Conventions an employer was not confined to suing the employee in the courts of the latter's domicile.
48 Schlosser Report  OJ C59/71, para 161.
49 Jenard Report (n 18) 33.
50 It should be noted that an employee who is sued in the courts of his or her domicile cannot challenge their jurisdiction by invoking a jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court entered into before the dispute has arisen: Cruz–Real–Jenard Report (n 37) para 27(e)(2). The special rules therefore slightly disfavour defendant employees in this respect.
51 Brussels I, art 20(2).
52 The fact that the rule of art 24 of Brussels I dealing with submission to jurisdiction by entering an appearance is neither contained nor referred to in Section 5 of Chapter II is irrelevant: see Case C–111/09 Česká podnikatelská pojišt'ovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas  ECR I–4545 noted by Grušić, U, ‘Submission and Protective Jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation’ (2011) 48 Common Market Law Review 947Google Scholar.
53 Sanicentral (n 21); Elefanten Schuh (n 21); Ivenel (n 25); Case 32/88 Six Constructions Ltd v Humbert  ECR 341; Mulox (n 31); Case C–383/95 Rutten v Cross Medical Ltd  ECR I–57; Case C–37/00 Weber v Universal Ogden Services Ltd  ECR I–2013; Case C–437/00 Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA  ECR I–3573; Case C–159/02 Turner v Grovit  ECR I–3565; Case C–555/03 Warbecq v Ryanair Ltd  ECR I–6041; GlaxoSmithKline (n 10); Case C–413/07 Haase v Superfast Ferries SA  OJ C51/40. See also Case C–29/10 Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, not yet published in ECR, and Case C–384/10 Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA, not yet published in ECR, dealing with art 6 of the Rome Convention.
54 Case 288/82 Duijnstee v Goderbauer  ECR 3663. In Turner (n 53), an action brought by the employee in England was followed by a vexatious action brought by the employer in Spain.
55 Junker, A, ‘Vom Brüsseler Übereinkommen zur Brüsseler Verordnung: Wandlungen des Internationalen Zivilprozessrechts’ (2002) 48 Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 569Google Scholar, 575.
56 Brussels I, art 35(1).
57 Commission, ‘Explanatory Memorandum’ (n 38) 23.
58 See eg B Ancel, ‘The Brussels I Regulation: Comment’ in P Sarcevic and P Volken (eds), Yearbook of Private International Law, vol 3 (Sellier European Law Publishers 2001) 101, 106–07; Droz, GAL and Gaudemet-Tallon, H, ‘La transformation de la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968 en Règlement du Conceil concernant la competence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des decision en matière civile et commerciale’ (2001) 90 Revue critique de droit international privé 601Google Scholar, 648; Hill, J and Chong, A, International Commercial Disputes: Commercial Conflict of Laws in English Courts (4th edn, Hart 2010) 455Google Scholar; van Hoek, AAH, ‘Case Note on Krombach v Bamberski’ (2001) 38 CMLR 1011Google Scholar, 1025; Junker (n 55) 577; Mankowski, P, ‘Article 35’ in Magnus, U and Mankowski, P (eds), Brussels I Regulation (Sellier European Law Publishers 2007) 601, 616Google Scholar.
59 Brussels I, art 19(1). Domicile of legal persons is defined autonomously in art 60. According to art 59, domicile of individuals is to be determined by reference to the Member States’ national laws.
60 ibid art 18(2). The Brussels and 1988 Lugano Conventions did not contain a rule extending the notion of the employer's domicile.
63 (n 53).
64 Six Constructions was decided under the Brussels Convention. It is interesting to note that, since the ECJ had to assume for procedural reasons that Six Constructions was domiciled in Belgium, the outcome was the same as if Brussels I, with its rule extending the notion of the employer's domicile, had been applied. The requirement that a dispute must arise out of the operations of the ancillary establishment is discussed below, 26–27.
65 For the French traditional rules of jurisdiction in employment matters see P Mayer, ‘Les clauses relatives à la compétence internationale insérées dans le contrat du travail’ in Mélanges dédiés à Dominique Holleaux (Litec 1990) 263.
66 Both bases of jurisdiction can be excluded by a jurisdiction agreement in favour of a foreign court: see cases cited by Mayer (n 65) 264 (for derogability of art 14 of the French Civil Code), 266–67, 271–72 (for derogability of the second indent of R 517-1 of the French Labour Code). No valid jurisdiction agreement existed in Six Constructions (n 53): see paras 4–5 of the judgment.
67 See Rigaux, F and Fallon, M, Droit international privé (3rd edn, Larcier 2005) 995Google Scholar. Art 5(5) of Brussels I is discussed in part D of this section.
68 See A Nuyts, ‘Study on Residual Jurisdiction: General Report’ <http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_residual_jurisdiction_en.pdf>, 36.
69 Not all Member States’ traditional rules give jurisdiction to their courts on the basis of the habitual place of work: see Nuyts (n 68) 43–46.
70 Brussels I, art 19(2)(a). The wording of art 5(1) of the Brussels and 1988 Lugano Conventions is slightly different as it does not refer to the courts for the last place where the employee habitually carried out his or her work. This should not, however, result in any practical difference between these instruments.
71 Work carried out on fixed or floating installations positioned on or above the part of the continental shelf adjacent to a Member State for the purposes of prospecting and exploiting its natural resources is regarded as work in the territory of that Member State: Weber (n 53).
72 Six Constructions (n 53); Shell International Ltd v Liem  ILPr 18 (French Cour de Cassation, 21 January 2004); Cruz–Real–Jenard Report (n 37) para 23(e); Kruger, T, Civil Jurisdiction Rules of the EU and their Impact on Third States (OUP 2008) 168Google Scholar, 176.
73 In Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA (n 53), the ECJ addressed a related question of whether the habitual place of work under a contract of employment with employer B was relevant in a dispute arising under a contract of employment with employer A, where employers A and B were related, and the employment with employer A was suspended owing to the employee's transfer to employer B. The Court held that the habitual place of work under the second contract of employment was relevant provided that employer A had an interest in the employee's work for employer B.
74 (n 31).
78 (n 53).
79 The reference for preliminary ruling was made because Mulox was decided under the original 1968 version of the Brussels Convention, which did not contain a special rule of jurisdiction for employment disputes. Rutten had to be decided under the 1989 version of the Convention, which did contain such a rule. The referring court was not sure whether the introduction of the special rule meant a change in the law.
80 Rutten (n 53) paras 12–19.
83 Mulox (n 31), Opinion of AG Jacobs, paras 29, 33; Rutten (n 53), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 34.
84 Mulox (n 31), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 32; Rutten (n 53), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 25. Compare P Mankowski, ‘Der gewöhnliche Arbeitsort im Internationalen Privat- und Prozeßrecht’, (1999) 19 Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts 332.
85 For the Commission's view see Rutten (n 53), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 33.
87 Mulox (n 31) para 24 (emphasis added). See also Jan Voogsgeerd (n 53) para 33.
89 Rutten (n 53) para 23 (emphasis added).
90 See Mulox (n 31), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 33; Rutten (n 53), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 34. See also Pitzolu v Banca Gesfid SA  ILPr 27 (Italian Corte di cassazione, 9 January 2008).
91 (n 53).
92 ibid paras 50–52 (emphasis added). See also Re Employment in More Than One State (5 AZR 141/01)  ILPr 33 (German Bundesarbeitsgericht, 29 May 2002).
96 For the importance of the intention of the parties see Mankowski (n 84) 334–35; Mankowski, P, ‘Europäisches Internationales Arbeitsprozessrecht: Weiteres zum gewöhnlichen Arbeitsort’ (2003) 13 IPRax 21Google Scholar, 23–25; see also Four Winds Charter (Societe) v Latoja  ILPr 50 (French Cour de cassation, 31 March 2009). See also para 36 in the Preamble to Rome I.
97 Mulox (n 31) paras 21, 23; Rutten (n 53) para 18; Weber (n 53) paras 42, 55; Pugliese (n 53) para 22.
98 Mulox (n 31) para 17; Rutten (n 53) para 16; Weber (n 53) para 39; Pugliese (n 53) para 17. See also Ivenel (n 25) paras 14–15.
99 Mulox (n 31) para 25; Weber (n 53) para 58; Mulox (n 31), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 33; Rutten (n 53) Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 34; Weber (n 53), Opinion of AG Jacobs, paras 49–50.
100 De Bloos (n 26).
101 Tessili (n 27). The corresponding art 5(1) of the Brussels and 1988 Lugano Conventions is identical to art 5(1)(a) of Brussels I.
102 Brussels I, art 5(1)(b), second indent (emphasis added).
103 See Case C–381/08 Car Trim GmbH v KeySafety Systems Srl  ECR I–1255, paras 53–57; Case C–87/10 Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA not yet published in ECR.
104 See Hartley, T, International Commercial Litigation: Text, Cases and Materials on Private International Law (CUP 2009) 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
105 Brussels I, art 5(1)(c); C–19/09 Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade SA  ECR I–2121, Opinion of AG Trstenjak, para 86; compare Takahashi, K, ‘Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to Contract: Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention and Regulation’ (2002) 27 ELRev 530, 540Google Scholar.
106 Case C–204/08,  ECR I–06073.
107 (n 105). For a general discussion of this problem see Grušić, U, ‘Jurisdiction in Complex Contracts under the Brussels I Regulation’ (2011) 7 J Priv Intl L 321CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
108 Rehder (n 106) paras 37–38; Wood Floor (n 105) para 33.
109 Wood Floor (n 105) paras 38–39. See also Mankowski, P, ‘Commercial Agents under European Jurisdiction Rules’ (2008) 10 Yb Priv Intl L 19Google Scholar, 31–42.
110 Wood Floor (n 105) para 38.
113 Rehder (n 106) para 42.
114 ibid paras 44–45, 47. If the services consist in a negative obligation that is not subject to any geographical limits, there is no jurisdictionally relevant place of provision of services: Case C–256/00 Besix SA v Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG (WABAG)  ECR I–1699 (the parties undertook to act exclusively and not to commit themselves to other parties anywhere in the world).
115 Brussels I, art 19(2)(b). The wording of the Brussels Convention is slightly different. It states that an employee who ‘does not habitually carry out his work in any one country … may also [sue his employer in the courts of the engaging place of business]’ (emphasis added). The use of the word ‘also’ led some authors to a wrong conclusion that the courts of the engaging place of business were available alongside the courts for the habitual place of work: see Anton, AE and Beaumont, PR, Private International Law: A Treatise from the Standpoint of Scots Law (2nd ed, Green 1990) 183Google Scholar, fn 29; Briggs, A, ‘Mulox v Geels’ (1993) 13 YbEurL 520Google Scholar, 523–24; Tagaras, H, ‘Mulox v Geels’  Cahiers de droit européen 188Google Scholar, 190.
116 (n 53).
118 Jan Voogsgeerd (n 53) paras 54–57; ibid Opinion of AG Trstenjak, paras 78–81. See also Jenard–Möler Report (n 34) para 43.
119 See CE Mota and GP Moreno, ‘Section 5: Jurisdiction over Individual Contracts of Employment’ in Magnus and Mankowski (eds) (n 58) 326, 339.
120 This results from the wording ‘where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated’. A problem of interpretation might arise if the relevant business moves from country A (where the employee was engaged) to country B and then to country C (where it is situated at the moment of commencement of proceedings). Can the employee then sue the employer in country B? The wording of art 19(2)(b) of Brussels I is wide enough to support this conclusion. However, this should not be allowed, as the courts of country B would more often than not have no connection with the dispute. See Kidner, R, ‘Jurisdiction in European Contracts of Employment’ (1998) 27 Industrial Law Journal 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 112.
121 See Jan Voogsgeerd (n 53), Opinion of AG Trstenjak, para 83. See also Cruz-Real-Jenard Report (n 37) para 23(c), fn 1.
123 This rule is not applicable where there is a habitual place of work outside the EU: see n 72. It is also not applicable where the whole of the employee's work is carried out in a single Member State, but not habitually in any one place within that Member State. By analogy with Case C–386/05 Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH  ECR I–3699, the court for each place of work would have jurisdiction over the whole employment dispute; see also Jenard–Möler Report (n 34) para 39.
124 (n 53).
126 Pursuant to the then extant version of art 68(1) of the EC Treaty, only a court or a tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there was no judicial remedy under national law could make references for preliminary ruling to the ECJ regarding the interpretation of the provisions of Brussels I. The Tribunal du travail de Charleroi and the Landesarbeitsgericht Mecklenburg-Vorpommern did not meet these criteria.
127 Rehder (n 106).
128 See Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA (n 53) paras 31–41; ibid, Opinion of AG Trstenjak, paras 56–60; compare the decision of the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi of 6 September 2007 in the Warbecq case <www.juridat.be>. The Belgian court held that Ms Warbecq had not habitually worked in any one country, and consequently applied the rule of the engaging place of business.
129 See Mulox (n 31), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 37; Rutten (n 53), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 37.
130 See Jenard–Möler Report (n 34) para 40.
131 Brussels I, arts 5(5) and 18(1).
132 For the requirement that a defendant domiciled in a Member State must have an ancillary establishment in another Member State see Collins, L (gen ed), Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (14th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2008)Google Scholar paras 11–310, 11–311; Fawcett, JJ and Carruthers, JM, Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law (14th edn, OUP 2008) 258–60Google Scholar.
133 Case 33/78 Somafer SA v Saar-Ferngas AG  ECR 2183, para 13.
134 Brussels Convention, arts 5(1) and 5(3); Brussels I, arts 5(1), 5(3), 19.
135 Case C-439/93,  ECR I–961.
136 See Case 218/86 SAR Schotte GmbH v Parfums Rotschild SARL  ECR 4905, Opinion of AG Slynn; Lloyd's Register of Shipping (n 135) para 20; Anton Durbeck GmbH v Den Norske Bank Asa  QB 1160 (CA) para 40.
137 Briggs, A and Rees, P, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (5th edn, Informa 2009) 282–83Google Scholar. See also Hertz, K, Jurisdiction in Contract and Torts under the Brussels Convention (Jurist og Ǿkonomforbundets Forlag 1998) 183Google Scholar.
138 See above, 2.
139 See n 52. The situation is different under the Brussels and 1988 Lugano Conventions: see n 12.
140 Brussels I, art 21; Schlosser Report (n 48) para 161.
141 eg British Employment Rights Act 1996, s 203.
142 Sanicentral (n 21); Elefanten Schuh (n 21). Compare Layton, A and Mercer, H (eds), European Civil Practice (Sweet & Maxwell 2004) 620Google Scholar.
143 Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction’ (n 14) 9.
144 See Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)’, COM (2005) 650 final, 7.
145 Art 8(2) of Rome I also prescribes that the ‘country where the work is habitually carried out shall not be deemed to have changed if [the employee] is temporarily employed in another country’. See also recital 36 in the Preamble to this Regulation.
146 Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction’ (n 14) 32.
147 Six Constructions (n 53), Opinion of AG Tesauro, paras 14–15.
148 eg where an employee maintains offices in several places of work and divides his or her working time equally among these places performing the same type of work, or where an employee who has no office divides his or working time equally among several places performing the same type of work. See also Mulox (n 31), Opinion of AG Jacobs, para 35.
149 eg cases involving seamen working on ocean liners, cruise ships or cargo ships.
150 The Dutch reporter for the ‘Study on Residual Jurisdiction’ (n 68) explains that this rule ‘has not been introduced into Dutch civil procedure because it was considered unnecessary’: General Report <http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/news/docs/study_resid_jurisd_netherlands_en.pdf>, 18.
151 Rome I, art 8(3).
152 Compare art 19(2)(b) of Brussels I, referring to ‘the place where the business which engaged [the employee] is or was situated’, with art 8(3) of Rome I, referring to ‘the place of business through which the employee was engaged is situated’.
153 Rome I, art 8(4).
155 Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction’ (n 14).
156 Nuyts (n 68) 43–46.
157 F Vischer, ‘Connecting Factors’ in K Lipstein (ed), International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, vol 3 (JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck) 1972) ch 4, 14.
158 Art 115(2) of the Swiss Private International Law Act, which adopts this solution, has been criticized on the ground that any judgment rendered on this basis has no chance of being recognised abroad, which makes the protection that it provides illusory: A Bucher, ‘Les nouvelles règles du droit international privé suisse dans le domaine du droit du travail’ in Le droit social a l'aube du XXIe siècle: melanges Alexandre Berenstein (Payot 1989) 147, 149.
159 Scoles, E and others, Conflict of Laws (4th edn, Thomson West 2004) 395–96Google Scholar; see also para 17.042(3) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
160 Runnels v TMSI Contractors, Inc 764 F 2d 417 (5th Cir 1985); Clark v Moran Towing & Transp Co 738 F Supp 1023 (ED La 1990); Mabry v Fuller-Shuwayer Co, Ltd 50 NC App 245 (1981).
161 Moreno v Milk Train, Inc 182 F Supp 2d 590 (WD Tex 2002).
162 Shah v Nu-Kote International, Inc 898 F Supp 496 (ED Mich 1995); Babineaux v Southeastern Drilling Corp 170 So 2d 518 (LaApp).
163 Conti v Pneumatic Products Corporation 977 F 2d 978 (6th Cir 1992).
164 Farbman v Esskay Manufacturing Co 676 F Supp 666 (WD NC 1987); Speckine v Stanwick Int'l Inc 503 F Supp 1055 (WD Mich 1980).
165 Brussels I, arts 15(1)(c) and 16(1).
166 The introduction of this jurisdictional basis is also advocated by M Polak ‘ “Laborum dulce lenimen”? Jurisdiction and Choice of Law Aspects of Employment Contracts’ in J Meeusen, M Pertegás and G Straetmans (eds), Enforcement of International Contracts in the European Union: Convergence and Divergence Between Brussels I and Rome I (Intersentia 2004) 323, 326.
167 In order to ensure that employees are given a jurisdictional preference, employers could be given the right to sue employees in the forum of the habitual place of work only during the employment relationship, and not once this has come to an end. Such a restriction was envisaged in art 8(2)(ii) of the 2000 preliminary draft Hague Convention on jurisdiction and foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters: see PE Nygh and F Pocar, ‘Report on the Preliminary Draft Convention on jurisdiction and foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters’ (Preliminary Document No. 11, August 2000) <http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgmpd11.pdf>, 55–56.
168 ‘Explanatory Memorandum’ (n 38) does not mention any practical reason for denying claimant employers the right to commence proceedings in the courts for the habitual place of work.
169 See the Netherlands’ initiative to amend Brussels I by making the courts for the habitual place of work available to employers in proceedings for termination of employment contracts,  OJ C311/16, which was rejected by the European Parliament: Parliamentary documents P5_TA(2003)0353 and A5-0253/2003. See also Written Question E-0785/02 by B Pronk and others to the Commission of 19 March 2002 and the Commission's Answer of 21 March 2002  OJ C309E/47; Written Question E-1517/02 by M Smet to the Commission of 29 May 2002 and the Commission's Answer of 10 July 2002  OJ C92E/62.
170 Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction’ (n 14) 9.
171 Not all Member States currently give jurisdiction to their courts on the basis of habitual place of work: see n 69.