Cour de cassation; 2020-11-18; 19-17794
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2020:SO01065
Date: 2020-11-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: France

82020FR1118(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A French employee (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) was hired by a British company in 1989. His contract was transferred to a Swiss company in 1991 and then to a company established in Bermuda in January 2016. The latter agreement provided for jurisdiction in favour of that State. The plaintiff was fired in June 2016.
The plaintiff brought an action before the Conseil de prud’hommes de Pau (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), seeking the nullity of his termination and the payment of various amounts. Claiming the indivisibility of the dispute, the plaintiff jointly and severally sued four companies: a Swiss company acting in the rights of another company, a Bermudian company, a French company and a US company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The Court of First Instance denied its jurisdiction to hear the case. The plaintiff appealed to the Cour d’appel de Pau (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which confirmed the decision of the first instance. The plaintiff appealed to the Cour de cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’), which confirmed the lack of jurisdiction of the French courts.
With respect to the defendant, the Supreme Court first recalls Article 288(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1), which provides that the rules of jurisdiction under domestic law are not applicable to disputes subject to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2). Then, it notes that the application of Article 21(2) of that regulation is defeated by the absence of a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Regarding the successor company to the Swiss company and the Bermudian company, the Supreme Court notes that Article 73 of the abovementioned regulation states that Article 21(2) does not affect the application of the new Lugano Convention (3). In this case, the first paragraph of Article 19(2) of that convention is applicable and provides that an employer of a contracting State may be sued in another contracting State provided that the work is regularly performed in this specific State of residence of the employee. The Supreme Court did not find any error of law since the Court of Appeal considered that the defendant did not prove that he had worked mainly or regularly from France to the detriment of other countries where he was assigned and that his contract did not provide for a fixed place of work, but on the contrary, forced him to move around according to his assignments.
The Supreme Court refutes the last argument based on the provisions of labour law on the determination of the international jurisdiction of the judge by recalling the principle that the municipal provisions do not apply if the dispute is subject to the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and to the new Lugano Convention.
(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
(2) 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.
(3) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.