Cour de cassation Chambre sociale; 2022-09-28; Soc., 28 septembre 2022, n°20-23.378
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:SO01038
Date: 2022-09-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82022FR0928(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case examined by the Cour de Cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned an application relating to a work contract between a Congolese national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and a British company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’).
In 2013, the plaintiff signed a fixed-term employment contract with the defendant, in the jurisdiction of the conseil de prud’hommes de Toulouse (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). One year later, he was promoted and signed an open-ended employment contract with the defendant. In 2015, he was dismissed; in 2017, he sued the defendant before the Court of First Instance.
The case was brought before the cour d’appel de Toulouse (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal”), which ruled that the French courts had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.
He argued that the applicable law under his employment contract was Congolese law, and he had a right under Congolese law to sue the defendant before the French courts.
He also argued that, regarding employment contracts performed in a foreign country, Article R. 1412-1 of the Code du travail (1) gives the employee a right to bring an action before the conseil de prud’hommes (hereinafter ‘the Labour Court’) of the place where he entered the contract; in this case, that Labour Court was the Court of First Instance. The plaintiff also claimed that, although the first employment contract was concluded in the Congo, it was merely the continuation of the first employment contract, which was concluded in France.
Lastly, he claimed that a situation of lis pendens established by the Court of Appeal was over when the Court of First Instance gave its ruling.
The Supreme Court relied on Article 21(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), which provides as follows: ‘An employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued […] (b) in another Member State: (I) in the courts for the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so; or (ii) if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated.’
As the Court of Appeal established that the plaintiff performed his work in the Congo, and the defendant was domiciled in the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
(1) Code du travail (Labour Code).
(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 (recast).