Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2002:511
Date: 2002-09-19
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

SUMMARY — CASE C-437/00 
S u m m a r y of the J u d g m e n t 
Convention on jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Special jurisdiction — 
Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of 
employment — Place where the employee habitually carries out his work — Deter­
mination — Employee having successively concluded two contracts with two different 
employers, the first contract being suspended during the performance of the second — 
Dispute between the employee and the first employer 
(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, Article 5(1), as amended by the Accession 
Conventions of 1978, 1982 and 1989) 
Art ic le 5(1) of the C o n v e n t i o n of 
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and 
the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and 
Commercial Matters, as amended by the 
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the 
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, 
Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Con­
vention of 25 October 1982 on the Acces­
sion of the Hellenic Republic and by the 
Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Acces­
sion of the Kingdom of Spain and the 
Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted 
as meaning that, in a dispute between an 
employee and a first employer, the place 
where the employee performs his obli­
gations to a second employer can be 
regarded as the place where he habitually 
carries out his work when the first 
employer, with respect to whom the 
employee's contractual obligations are sus­
pended, has, at the time of the conclusion 
of the second contract of employment, an 
interest in the performance of the service by 
the employee to the second employer. The 
existence of such an interest must be 
determined on a comprehensive basis, tak­
ing into consideration all the circumstances 
of the case. 
When such an interest is lacking on the part 
of the first employer, Article 5(1) of the 
Brussels Convention must be interpreted as 
meaning that the place where the employee 
carries out his work is the only place of 
performance of an obligation which can be 
taken into consideration in order to deter­
mine which court has jurisdiction. 
(see paras 26, 28, 30, operative part 1-2) 
I - 3574