ON THE FACT THAT IN ITS OPINION THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT . AS REGARDS ITS JURISDICTION RATIONE LOCI IT CONSIDERED THAT , ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF THE CONVENTION , IN MATTERS OF CONTRACT AN ACTION MIGHT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A DEFENDANT ORDINARILY RESIDENT IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BEFORE THE COURT FOR THE PLACE WHERE THE OBLIGATION WAS , OR WAS TO BE , PERFORMED AND THAT IN THE CASE IN POINT THE OBLIGATION TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WAS THAT OF THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE WHO HAD HIS OFFICE IN STRASBOURG WHERE HE COLLATED ORDERS AND ATTENDED TO THEIR EXECUTION .
4 WHEN AN APPEAL BY SCHWAB WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUR D ' APPEL , COLMAR , THAT COURT , WHILST CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF THE CONSEIL DE PRUD ' HOMMES IN SO FAR AS IT FOUND THAT THERE WAS A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT , SET ASIDE THAT JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION RATIONE LOCI . THE COUR D ' APPEL CONSIDERED THAT THE OBLIGATION TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF THE CONVENTION WAS THAT WHICH CONSTITUTED THE BASIS OF THE COURT ACTION . IN THE CASE IN POINT THAT OBLIGATION WAS THE PAYMENT OF THE COMMISSION AND OTHER AMOUNTS CLAIMED FROM SCHWAB , WHICH WERE PAYABLE AT THE ADDRESS OF THE DEBTOR AND NOT THE CREDITOR .
5 MR IVENEL APPEALED IN CASSATION AGAINST THAT JUDGMENT AND MAINTAINED THAT THE COUR D ' APPEL HAD INFRINGED ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF THE CONVENTION .
6 THE COUR DE CASSATION TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE GROUNDS RELIED ON BY THE COUR D ' APPEL IN DECIDING THAT THE FRENCH COURTS HAD NO JURISDICTION IN THE CASE BUT NEVERTHELESS CONSIDERED THAT SINCE THE ACTION RELATED TO THE PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT FOR REPRESENTATION INVOLVING MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS SOME OF WHICH AT LEAST WERE PERFORMED IN FRANCE THE QUESTION WHICH WAS THE PLACE OF PERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) RAISED AN ISSUE OF INTERPRETATION . IT THEREFORE STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS AND ASKED THE COURT FOR A RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION TO BE GIVEN TO THAT PROVISION .
7 IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT , AS THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS ALREADY STATED , IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6 OCTOBER 1976 IN CASE 12/76 TESSILI ( 1976 ) ECR 1473 , THE ' ' PLACE OF PERFORMANCE ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 5 ( 1 ) OF THE CONVENTION IS TO BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW WHICH GOVERNS THE OBLIGATION IN QUESTION ACCORDING TO THE CONFLICT RULES OF THE COURT BEFORE WHICH THE MATTER IS BROUGHT .
8 THE QUESTION RAISED BY THE NATIONAL COURT CONCERNS THE OBLIGATION TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT DEFINITION WHEN THE CLAIM BEFORE THE COURT IS BASED ON DIFFERENT