WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/02 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)and Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.
Date: 2002-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European judicial area, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, labour law, labour tribunal, work contract

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/47

(2002/C 309 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE), Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)
and Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Subject: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil
and commercial matters entered into force on 1 March 2002. Article 20(1) of the regulation says that:

1. An employer may bring proceedings only in the courts of the Member State in which the employee
is domiciled.

In view of the substantial differences in the area of labour law, social security law and tax law between the
various Member States, it seems on the face of it that lengthy, cumbersome and costly procedures may
arise. The judge in the Member State of the employee always first has to consider the relevant law of the
employer’s Member State in the event of a dispute. In addition, the case documents have to be translated,
which may entail a great deal of time and substantial costs. This would be justified if the worker actually
carried out his activities in the territory of the Member State in which he is domiciled, but this is far from
always being the case. The provision therefore seems extremely rigid.

1. Will the Commission clarify the interpretation, background and implications of this provision,
bearing in mind the concerns set out above? Would it not be better to apply the criterion that only the
courts in the Member State in which the work is actually done would have jurisdiction?

Does the present system not result in unnecessarily high translation costs? Can the Commission
2.
explain which party is responsible for paying the additional translation costs and does it not consider that
this imposes an extra and unnecessary burden on citizens and/or undertakings in the European Union?

(1) OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The sound administration of justice is an essential concern when drafting the rules of private international
law. However, this law is also a reflection of other objectives of general
interest, such as connection
between the dispute, the court at which the case is to be heard, the applicable law and the protection of
the weaker party.

Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil
and commercial matters (1) entered into force on 1 March 2002. The provisions on the contract of
employment have been amended with the specific purpose of protecting the weaker party by means of
rules of jurisdiction which are more favourable to his interests than the general rules which would have
tended to favour a tribunal closer to the employer. Article 20 therefore states that an employer may bring
proceedings only in the courts of the Member State in which the employee is domiciled. The employee, on
the other hand, may sue the employer in the courts of the Member State in which he is domiciled, or, in
another Member State, in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in
the courts for the last place where he did so.

On the matter of applicable law, the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980, which is binding in all the
Member States, requires the court to apply the law chosen by the parties, although this choice should not
have the result of depriving the worker of the protection afforded to him by the mandatory rules of the
law of the country in which he habitually carries out his work, as a matter of principle. If no choice is
made, the applicable law is that of the country in which the worker habitually carries out his work. There
in certain cross-border situations covered only by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, a degree of
is, then,
separation between the law applied and the law of the court seised. This solution is justified, however,
firstly, by the need to ensure that all employees of the same company are subject to the same law, and
secondly, because the law of the place where the work is carried out, and especially its mandatory rules on
the protection of workers, has the closest links with the dispute. For information, the Commission is
currently working on a Green Paper on the conversion of the 1980 Rome Convention into a Community

C 309 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

instrument and its modernisation. It cannot be ruled out that the provisions of this Convention relating to
contracts of employment will be subjected to critical review.

In addition, Article 73 of the Regulation requires the Commission to report to the European Parliament on
its application no later than five years after its entry into force. Thus, even if the situation described by the
Honourable Member, which already existed at the time of the adoption by the Council of Regulation (EC)
No 44/2001, has neither been raised nor given rise to the tabling of amendments in the course of
negotiations, the Commission could still examine it in this report should it prove in the course of its
application in the Member States that Article 20 of the Regulation was causing problems, in particular as
regards increasing costs.

The Commission does not therefore intend at this stage to propose an amendment to Regulation (EC)
No 44/2001, which has just entered into force.

(1) OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.

(2002/C 309 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0819/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Military action on the part of the United States and Russia in the Pankisi Gorge in Georgia, on the

frontier with Chechnya

The media have recently reported Russia’s intention to extend the war against terrorism to Georgia, and
the fact that the United States has sent troops to the Caucasus, the purpose being, in both cases, to take
action in the Psankisi Gorge on the Chechen border.

What is the Council’s position with regard to these decisions, which directly affect a region situated in an
area of strategic interest for the European Union and which was directly affected by the conflict in
Chechnya, a country destroyed by the Russian army?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council’s position with regard to developments in the Pankisi Gorge is based on the principle of the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia as an independent State. The EU has consistently sought to
support this goal, notably through the substantial assistance that it has given to the Georgian Border
Guards working with the Border Monitoring and Observation mission of the OSCE along parts of the
borders with Russia.

No country may consider itself safe from the threat of terrorism and in this context Georgia clearly faces
particular problems but also responsibilities resulting from its proximity to the Chechen Republic of the
Russian Federation. It is clear that Georgia will have to take particular measures to counter these threats
which question its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The task of the US military experts (who entered
Georgia with the full agreement of the Georgian authorities) will be to train and equip Georgian security
forces in support of this. For the EU, the Council welcomes all measures which support Georgia in this
aim. Meanwhile, President Putin of Russia has also welcomed US assistance to Georgia in combating
common threats to regional stability.

It is the recognition of its strategic interests in the Southern Caucasus that has led the EU to play a more
active political role in the region over the past year. An essential complement to this policy has been a
stronger EU role in conflict resolution, notably in South Ossetia, as well as an intensified political dialogue
about the region with Russia and the United States, as well as with Turkey and Iran. The EU will continue
to consult closely with its partners on all developments, with a view to promoting its stated goals of peace,
stability, prosperity and regional cooperation.