July 2025 at the Court of Justice of the European Union

On 3 July 2025, Advocate General Norkus will deliver his opinion on case C-485/24, Locatrans. The request for a preliminary ruling, from the Cour de Cassation, Chambre sociale (Court of Cassation, Social Chamber, France), concerns the interpretation of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations.

ES, the defendant in the main proceedings, worked as a driver for the Luxembourg transport company Locatrans from October 2002 to July 2014. According to the employment contract the transport would be carried out in several European countries; Luxembourg law was designated as the applicable law.

For the last eighteen months of the employment relationship, ES usually performed his work in France.

After Locatrans put an end to the employment relationship ES brought proceedings before the Conseil de Prud’hommes de Dijon (Labour Tribunal, Dijon) involving several claims for compensation. The Labour Tribunal considered that Luxembourg law was applicable to the performance and termination of the employee’s employment contract, and ruled against the plaintiff. On the appeal lodged by the latter, the cour d’appel de Dijon (Court of Appeal, Dijon) set aside the judgment. It held that, pursuant to Article 6 of the Rome Convention, the choice of Luxembourg law made by the parties could not have the result of depriving the employee of the protection afforded to him by the mandatory rules of French law, which would apply on the basis of the place where the employee habitually carried out his work.

Locatrans appealed on a point of law. The Cour de Cassation has referred the following question to the Court of Justice:

Are Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the employee carries out the same activities for his employer in more than one Contracting State, the full duration of the employment relationship should, in order to determine the law which would be applicable in the absence of a choice made by the parties, be taken into account in order to determine the place where the person concerned habitually carried out his work or should the most recent period of work be taken into account where the employee, having worked for a certain time in one place, then carries out his activities in a lasting manner in a different place which is clearly intended by the parties to become a new habitual place of work?

In light of the the reasons stated in the request, the Court of Justice is asked to interpret the concept of ‘the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract’ for the purposes of Article 6 of the Rome Convention. To do so, it will need to decide on the weight to be given to its own case law relating to Article 5 of the Brussels Convention 1968 as amended in so far as it contains a similar notion (see current Article 21 of the Brussels I bis Regulation).

The case has been assigned to a Chamber composed of five judges, with M. Kumin reporting.

A week later, on 10 July, the decision in C-99/24, Chmieka will be made public.  At stake are the scope of application ratione temporis of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the characterisation of a claim as pertaining to those under exclusive jurisdiction in matters of real estate rights and leases of buildings, and the conditions to sue multiple defendants in the courts for the place where one of them has his domicile. The referring court – Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie (First Civil Division of the District Court, Koszalin, Poland)-, asks:

(1) Must Article 66 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that the ‘institution of legal proceedings’ means the lodging of an application by an applicant in a procedural matter or the lodging, by the defendant, of a request for review of the case after the definitive conclusion thereof,

and, depending on the answer to the above question:

(2) Must the provisions of Chapter II of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

or the provisions of Chapter II of [Regulation No 1215/2012]

be interpreted as meaning that a person domiciled in one Member State may be sued in the courts of another Member State for payment of remuneration for the non-contractual use of immovable property situated in that other Member State?

In the main proceedings G.M.K. brought an action before the Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie [(‘the Sąd Rejonowy’)] on 15 March 2013 against T., S., M. and S.O. concerning the payment of remuneration for the non-contractual use of the municipality’s property situated in Koszalin (Republic of Poland) following the termination of a tenancy agreement. The applicant stated the residential address of all defendants in Poland. An order for payment was issued in the case, which was received at the address in Poland by one of the defendants on behalf of all the others. The order for payment was not challenged. It was found to be valid and enforceable.

By a letter addressed to the Sąd Rejonowy on 7 July 2023, S.O. successfully lodged a statement of opposition to the order for payment, requesting that the case be reviewed and the action of 15 March 2013 against her be dismissed. She contended that the Polish court lacked jurisdiction, as since 2007 she has been domiciled solely in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and has never concluded a tenancy agreement for the property in question with the municipality.

The applicant (G.M.K.) argues that there is such a strong legal link between the defendants that it is expedient to determine the case for payment together. They are all related and lived together in the applicant’s property. The tenancy agreement for that property was concluded solely by T.O. (the mother of the other defendants) in 1994. Termination of the tenancy agreement was notified to T.O. and an order was issued for the eviction of all the defendants from the property in question in 2007.

For this case the Court sits in a Chamber of three judges, with M. Jääskinen reporting.