# C_2021138EN.01001001.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — BU v Markt24 GmbH

(Case C-804/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction in respect of individual contracts of employment - Provisions of Section 5 of Chapter II - Applicability - Contract entered into in a Member State for employment with a company established in another Member State - No work performed throughout the duration of the contract - Exclusion of the application of national rules of jurisdiction - Article 21(1)(b)(i) - Concept of the ‘place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work’ - Contract of employment - Place of performance of the contract - Obligations of the employee towards his or her employer)

(2021/C 138/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BU

Defendant: Markt24 GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The provisions set out in Section 5 of Chapter II of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, under the heading ‘Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment’, must be interpreted as applying to a legal action brought by an employee domiciled in a Member State against an employer domiciled in another Member State in the case where the contract of employment was negotiated and entered into in the Member State in which the employee is domiciled and provided that the place of performance of the work was located in the Member State of the employer, even though that work was not performed for a reason attributable to that employer; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The provisions set out in Section 5 of Chapter II of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, under the heading ‘Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment’, must be interpreted as applying to a legal action brought by an employee domiciled in a Member State against an employer domiciled in another Member State in the case where the contract of employment was negotiated and entered into in the Member State in which the employee is domiciled and provided that the place of performance of the work was located in the Member State of the employer, even though that work was not performed for a reason attributable to that employer;

| 2. | The provisions set out in Section 5 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as precluding the application of national rules of jurisdiction in respect of an action such as that referred to in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment, irrespective of whether those rules are more beneficial to the employee; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The provisions set out in Section 5 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as precluding the application of national rules of jurisdiction in respect of an action such as that referred to in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment, irrespective of whether those rules are more beneficial to the employee;

| 3. | Article 21(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an action such as that referred to in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment may be brought before the court of the place where or from where the employee was required, pursuant to the contract of employment, to discharge the essential part of his or her obligations towards his or her employer, without prejudice to point 5 of Article 7 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 21(1)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an action such as that referred to in point 1 of the operative part of the present judgment may be brought before the court of the place where or from where the employee was required, pursuant to the contract of employment, to discharge the essential part of his or her obligations towards his or her employer, without prejudice to point 5 of Article 7 of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---