# C_2010317EN.01001401.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, lodged on 29 July 2010 — Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA

(Case C-384/10)

()

2010/C 317/26

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jan Voogsgeerd

Appellant:

Respondent: Navimer SA

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the country in which the place of business is situated through which an employee was engaged, within the meaning of Article 6(2)(b) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, (1) be taken to mean the country in which the place of business of the employer is situated through which, according to the contract of employment, the employee was engaged, or the country in which the place of business of the employer is situated with which the employee is connected for his actual employment, even though that employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the country in which the place of business is situated through which an employee was engaged, within the meaning of Article 6(2)(b) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, (1) be taken to mean the country in which the place of business of the employer is situated through which, according to the contract of employment, the employee was engaged, or the country in which the place of business of the employer is situated with which the employee is connected for his actual employment, even though that employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country?

1

| 2. | Must the place to which an employee who does not habitually carry out his work in any one country is obliged to report and where he receives administrative briefings, as well as instructions for the performance of his work, be deemed to be the place of actual employment within the meaning of the first question? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the place to which an employee who does not habitually carry out his work in any one country is obliged to report and where he receives administrative briefings, as well as instructions for the performance of his work, be deemed to be the place of actual employment within the meaning of the first question?

| 3. | Must the place of business with which the employee is connected for his actual employment within the meaning of the first question satisfy certain formal requirements such as, inter alia, the possession of legal personality, or does the existence of a de facto place of business suffice for that purpose? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must the place of business with which the employee is connected for his actual employment within the meaning of the first question satisfy certain formal requirements such as, inter alia, the possession of legal personality, or does the existence of a de facto place of business suffice for that purpose?

| 4. | Can the place of business of another company, with which the corporate employer is connected, serve as the place of business within the meaning of the third question, even though the authority of the employer has not been transferred to that other company? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can the place of business of another company, with which the corporate employer is connected, serve as the place of business within the meaning of the third question, even though the authority of the employer has not been transferred to that other company?

---

(1)  OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1.

1

---