CELEX: 62010CA0029
Language: en
Date: 2011-03-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-29/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel — Luxembourg) — Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Contract of employment — Choice made by the parties — Mandatory rules of the law applicable in the absence of choice — Determination of that law — Notion of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ — Employee carrying out his work in more than one Contracting State)

7.5.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 139/9
            
         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel — Luxembourg) — Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
   (Case C-29/10) (1)
   
   (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Contract of employment - Choice made by the parties - Mandatory rules of the law applicable in the absence of choice - Determination of that law - Notion of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ - Employee carrying out his work in more than one Contracting State)
   2011/C 139/14
   Language of the case: French
   
      Referring court
   
   Cour d’appel
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Heiko Koelzsch
   
      Defendant: État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel — Interpretation of Article 6(2)(a) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1) — Determination of the law applicable to an action for wrongful dismissal in the absence of a choice by the parties to an individual employment contract — Concept of place‘in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ — Employee working in more than one country but returning systematically to one of them
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 6(2)(a) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which an employee carries out his activities in more than one Contracting State, the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract, within the meaning of that provision, is that in which or from which, in the light of all the factors which characterise that activity, the employee performs the greater part of his obligations towards his employer.
   
      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.