Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:122
Date: 2002-02-27
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction
Concepts: Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract – Employment contracts
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Convention on jurisdiction and the Enforcement of judgments — Special jurisdic­
tion — Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract 
of employment — Work carried out 'in the territory of a Contracting State' — 
I - 2013 
SUMMARY — CASE C-37/00 
Meaning — Work carried out in the area of the continental shelf adjacent to a 
Contracting State — Included 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(1), as amended by the Accession 
Conventions of 1978, 1982 and 1989) 
2. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments — Special jurisdic­
tion — Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract 
of employment — Place where the employee habitually carries out his work — 
Determination, where work carried out in more than one Contracting State — Criteria 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(1), as amended by the Accession 
Conventions of 1978, 1982 and 1989) 
1. Work carried out by an employee on 
fixed or floating installations pos­
itioned on or above the part of the 
continental shelf adjacent to a Con­
tracting State, in the context of the 
prospecting and/or exploitation of its 
natural resources, is to be regarded as 
work carried out in the territory of that 
State for the purposes of applying 
Article 5(1) of the Convention of 
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction 
and the Enforcement of Judgments in 
Civil and Commercial Matters, as 
amended by the Convention of 9 Oc­
tober 1978 on the Accession of the 
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland, the Convention of 
25 October 1982 on the Accession of 
the Hellenic Republic and the Conven­
tion of 26 May 1989 on the Accession 
of the Kingdom of Spain and the 
Portuguese Republic. 
(see para. 36, operative part 1) 
2. Article 5(1) of the Convention of 
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction 
and the Enforcement of Judgments in 
Civil and Commercial Matters, as 
amended by the Convention of 9 Oc­
tober 1978 on the Accession of the 
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland, the Convention of 
25 October 1982 on the Accession of 
the Hellenic Republic and the Conven­
tion of 26 May 1989 on the Accession 
of the Kingdom of Spain and the 
Portuguese Republic, must be inter­
preted as meaning that where an 
employee performs the obligations aris­
ing under his contract of employment 
in several Contracting States the place 
where he habitually works, within the 
meaning of that provision, is the place 
where, or from which, taking account 
of all the circumstances of the case, he 
in fact performs the essential part of his 
duties vis-à-vis his employer. 
In the case of a contract of employment 
under which an employee performs for 
I - 2014 
WEBER v UNIVERSAL OGDEN SERVICES 
his employer the same activities in 
more than one Contracting State, it is 
necessary, in principle, to take account 
of the whole of the duration of the 
employment relationship in order to 
identify the place where the employee 
habitually works, within the meaning 
of Article 5(1). Failing other criteria, 
that will be the place where the 
employee has worked the longest. It 
will only be otherwise if, in light of the 
facts of the case, the subject-matter of 
the dispute is more closely connected 
with a different place of work, which 
would, in that case, be the relevant 
place for the purposes of applying 
Article 5(1) of the Convention. 
In the event that the criteria laid down 
by the Court of Justice do not enable 
the national court to identify the habit­
ual place of work, as referred to in 
Article 5(1) of the Convention, the 
employee will have the choice of suing 
his employer either in the courts for the 
place where the business which 
engaged him is situated, or in the 
courts of the Contracting State in 
whose territory the employer is domi­
ciled. 
Moreover, national law applicable to 
the main dispute has no bearing on the 
interpretation of the concept of the 
place where an employee habitually 
works, within the meaning of 
Article 5(1) of the Convention. 
(see paras 58, 62, operative part 2-3) 
I-2015