Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2019:72
Date: 2019-01-29
Language of the case: Bulgarian;Czech;Danish;German;Greek;English;Estonian;Finnish;French;Croatian;Hungarian;Italian;Latvian;Lithuanian;Maltese;Dutch;Polish;Portuguese;Romanian;Slovak;Slovenian;Spanish;Swedish
Subject matter: External relations;Provisions governing the Institutions;International agreements
Procedure: Request for an Opinion - agreement compatible
Origin: Belgium

summary of the particularities of a contract of employment, judgment of 15 January 1987, Shenavai (266/85, EU:C:1987:11, paragraph 16). For an illustration of several contractual relationships, see judgment of 10 April 2003, Pugliese (C‑437/00, EU:C:2003:219, paragraphs 4 to 9), and, specifically with regard to companies belonging to the same group, judgments of 22 May 2008, Glaxosmithkline and Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline (C‑462/06, EU:C:2008:299, paragraphs 7 to 10), and of 10 September 2015, Holterman Ferho Exploitatie and Others (C‑47/14, EU:C:2015:574 paragraphs 12 to 18). 26 For a recent illustration, see judgment of 14 September 2017, Nogueira and Others (C-168/16 and C-169/16, EU:C:2017:688, paragraph 55), as regards the autonomous interpretation of Article 19(2) of Regulation No 44/2001. 27 OJ 1998 C 27, p. 34. Article 6 of that convention is applicable to contracts concluded up until 17 December 2009. After that date, Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6), is applicable, under Article 28 of that regulation.