Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch, arrest van 29/04/2008 X. / Y.
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2008:BD3905
Date: 2008-04-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82008NL0429(01)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The employer (hereafter AG), with its seat in Germany, employed a managing employee (hereafter AN), domiciled in the Netherlands. Among AN's job duties was product development as well as technical support in sales and in negotiations with delivery services and clients. He set up an office in his residence where he could perform his work. In the employment contract, Dusseldorf was agreed to as the jurisdiction and place of performance of the contract, as well as a separate dispute resolution clause for inventions of the employee designating the Patent Office in Munich (DE). The parties went to trial in the court of first instance at the Kantonrechter in Eindhoven (NL) over commissions based on an invention that AN claimed as his own.The defendant AG disputed jurisdiction. The Kantonrechter declared itself as having jurisdiction. The AG appealed to the Gerechthof of 's-Hertogenbosch (NL). It cited Article 22(4) Brussels I Regulation and contended that the dispute was not over an employment issue, but whether or not the invention belonged to AN. In the alternative, AG contended that AN regularly performed his work neither in Germany nor in the Netherlands, so that a place for the regular performance of his work was not determinable.
The Hof of 's-Hertogenbosch holds that this case is, on the merits, an employment law issue and not a patent law issue. The core of the dispute is not the registration and recordation of a patent, but rather AN's claims for commissions based on the employment contract. After reviewing the evidence, the Hof finds that AN generally performed his work at home in the Netherlands, so that the Kantonrechter in Eindhoven has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 19(2)(a) Brussels I Regulation. The jurisdiction agreement in the employment contract is invalid because it was not agreed to after the dispute arose as required by Article 21 Brussels I Regulation.