Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2008:22
Date: 2008-01-17
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment – More than one defendant (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1)) The rule of special jurisdiction provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters cannot be applied to a dispute falling under Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation concerning the jurisdiction rules applicable to individual contracts of employment. It is apparent from Article 18(1) of that regulation and, moreover, from a literal interpretation of Section 5, supported by the ‘travaux préparatoires’ relating to the regulation, that the court having jurisdiction in proceedings concerning an individual contract of employment must be designated in accordance with the jurisdiction rules laid down in that section, rules which, on account of their specific and exhaustive nature, cannot be amended or supplemented by other rules of jurisdiction laid down in that regulation unless specific reference is made thereto in Section 5. As regards the possibility that only an employee may rely on Article 6(1) of the regulation, that would run counter to the wording of both that provision and Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation. The transformation by the Community courts of the rules of special jurisdiction, aimed at facilitating sound administration of justice, into rules of unilateral jurisdiction protecting the party deemed to be weaker would go beyond the balance of interests which the Community legislature has established in the law as it currently stands. Furthermore, such an interpretation would be difficult to reconcile with the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the objectives of the regulation and which requires, in particular, that rules of jurisdiction be interpreted in such a way as to be highly predictable. (see paras 19-24, 32-33, 35, operative part)