# C_2012295EN.01001101.xml

| 29.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Ahmed Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria

(Case C-154/11) (1)

1

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment - Contract with an embassy of a third State - Immunity of the employing State - Concept of branch, agency or other establishment within the meaning of Article 18(2) - Compatibility with Article 21 of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the third State)

2012/C 295/17

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ahmed Mahamdia

Applicant:

Defendant: People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of Articles 18, 19 and 21 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Determination of jurisdiction to hear a dispute concerning the validity of the termination of the employment contract of the applicant, a national of a Member State and of a non-member country, who had been employed as a driver in the Member State of which he is a national by the embassy of the non-member country of which he is also a national pursuant to an employment contract which provided that the courts of that latter State would have jurisdiction in the event of a dispute

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 18(2) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an embassy of a third State situated in a Member State is an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of that provision, in a dispute concerning a contract of employment concluded by the embassy on behalf of the sending State, where the functions carried out by the employee do not fall within the exercise of public powers. It is for the national court seised to determine the precise nature of the functions carried out by the employee. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 18(2) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an embassy of a third State situated in a Member State is an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of that provision, in a dispute concerning a contract of employment concluded by the embassy on behalf of the sending State, where the functions carried out by the employee do not fall within the exercise of public powers. It is for the national court seised to determine the precise nature of the functions carried out by the employee.

| 2. | Article 21(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement on jurisdiction concluded before a dispute arises falls within that provision in so far as it gives the employee the possibility of bringing proceedings, not only before the courts ordinarily having jurisdiction under the special rules in Articles 18 and 19 of that regulation, but also before other courts, which may include courts outside the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 21(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement on jurisdiction concluded before a dispute arises falls within that provision in so far as it gives the employee the possibility of bringing proceedings, not only before the courts ordinarily having jurisdiction under the special rules in Articles 18 and 19 of that regulation, but also before other courts, which may include courts outside the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.

1

---