WRITTEN QUESTION E-3935/03 by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Court with jurisdiction in international civil and commercial matters under Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.
Date: 2003-12-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, civil law, commercial law, frontier worker, jurisdiction, mutual recognition principle, termination of a contract, work contract

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/883

an angle is not in fact maintained: when the thighs are horizontal, the pelvis tilts backwards and the back
bends. As a result,
it is difficult to lean actively against a back rest in the orthodox manner and to
concentrate on sedentary work. This is overwhelmingly the most common individual factor behind back
pain. The cost of poor sitting postures is substantial in terms of worsening back pain, tiredness caused by
sitting, and impairment of labour efficiency and productivity.

The requirements of good ergonomics are currently best met by sitting in a rider’s posture, using a saddle
chair. As a result, the thighs open up and are angled approximately 45 o downwards, and the ischia
support the weight of the body without imposing any extra pressure on muscles or ducts. This type of
posture is significantly healthier, more comfortable and safer than the traditional one.

What can the Commission do to promote recognition of this business idea and how can the saddle chair
be incorporated into existing chair classifications and standards?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

It is clearly not within the Commission’s remit to promote particular business ideas. Although ergonomic
chairs can help prevent certain health problems and should therefore be available on the market, it is for
users to choose the type of chairs most adapted to their needs.

As far as classification and standards for chairs are concerned, these are aspects that are better dealt with
by industry itself in the first instance, in particular through voluntary standardisation activities within the
European Standardisation Committee (CEN).

As far as worker protection at the workplace is concerned, Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989
on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (1)
provides that the employer shall take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of
workers, including prevention of risks.

Moreover, the individual Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990, on the minimum safety and
health requirements for work with display screen equipment (2), establishes that employers are obliged to
perform an analysis of workstations, including work chair,
in order to evaluate the safety and health
conditions. The employer shall take appropriate measures to remedy the risks found, on the basis of the
afore-mentioned evaluation. The same Directive details minimum requirements for work chairs such as
stability, adjustability and comfort.

(1) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(2) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.

(2004/C 78 E/0935)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3935/03

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Court with jurisdiction in international civil and commercial matters under Regulation (EC) No 44/

2001

In its report on civil and commercial matters (Wallis report (cid:1) A5-0253/2003), adopted in plenary on
2 September, the European Parliament urged the Commission to evaluate and, if necessary, propose an
amendment to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1).

C 78 E/884

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

I recently again heard about a problem regarding the application of this regulation. An employee from
Germany was working in the Netherlands under a Dutch employment contract. Under German law, an
employment contract may be terminated by means of unilateral dismissal, but not under Netherlands law.
When an employment dispute arose, the Dutch employer was required by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to
ask a German court to dissolve the employment contract, a procedure completely unknown to the German
court.

Does the Commission agree that the above leads to complicated procedures and places an unnecessary
administrative and financial burden on businesses in border regions and their employees?

Will the Commission, as requested by Parliament, take measures to avoid such undesirable situations in
future?

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

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

In its legislative resolution of 2 September 2003 the European Parliament, whilst rejecting the initiative of
the Kingdom of the Netherlands, called upon the Commission to give proper consideration to the issue of
problems resulting, particularly in border areas, from the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member
State in which the employee is domiciled for legal action brought by the employer for judicial annulment
of an employment contract.

The report adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market suggests firstly examining
whether, and to what extent, problems have arisen or are likely to arise and secondly, depending on the
outcome of that analysis, considering amending legislation.

Within its general responsibility for monitoring the implementation and functioning of adopted legislation
the Commission can certainly look at the issue that the Honourable Member is raising, or at any other
difficulty with Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 that may be brought to its attention. As regards the
issue in question, it has to be noted that the relatively short period since the entry into force of Council
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 makes it somewhat difficult, due to the absence of much accessible case law,
to shed light on the question of where and to what extent the jurisdictional rule of Article 20(1) has led to
practical problems in cases such as those mentioned in the written question. However, the Commission
database which will become operational at some point in 2004, providing access to decisions of the
Member States’ courts on the interpretation of the Regulation will be of considerable value in that respect.
Furthermore, the European Judicial Network could certainly be an appropriate forum to look further into
this matter. Note has to be taken of the fact, however, that even after the issue had been brought to the
Member States’ attention by the Netherlands initiative, no other Member State, including those sharing a
border with the Netherlands, has reported any similar difficulties to the Commission or lent any support to
the initiative.

As regards the underlying substantive issue, the Commission confirms that it is firmly attached to the
principle of the protection of the employee as the weaker party and shares the view expressed in the
report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market that this principle should be retained.
In that context, it needs to be underscored that if it could be established that in very specific cases the
application of Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is not indispensable to protect the
weaker party of an individual employment contract, several solutions would be conceivable, without
necessarily creating a new jurisdictional rule. Some specific possibilities are already mentioned in the
report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. For example, the suggestion to require
the employee’s consent to the bringing of proceedings in the Member State where he habitually carries out
his work would not require any change to the Regulation as that possibility already exists pursuant to
Article 21. Thus, if it were demonstrated that the application of Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 44/2001 creates practical problems in specific situations, all possible options would have to be
carefully analysed, including the possibility that they could be successfully resolved within the current
framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001,
for example by resorting to choice-of-court
agreements pursuant to Article 21.