Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA, Betriebsteil Alenia Aerospazio.
Date: 2003-04-10
16. First, it is clear from that case-law that, with regard to this type of contract, the place of performance of the obligation upon which the claim is based, as referred to in Article 5(1) of the Convention, must be determined  by reference to uniform criteria which it is for the Court to lay down on the basis of the scheme and objectives of the Convention (see,  inter alia , Case C-125/92  Mulox IBC  [1993] ECR  I-4075, paragraphs 10, 11 and 16; Case C-383/95  Rutten  [1997] ECR I-57, paragraphs 12 and 13; and Case C-37/00  Weber  [2002] ECR I-2013, paragraph 38). The Court has stressed that such an autonomous interpretation alone is capable of ensuring uniform application of the Convention, the objectives of which include unification of the rules on jurisdiction of the Contracting States, so as to avoid as far as possible the multiplication of the bases of jurisdiction in relation to one and the same legal relationship and to reinforce the legal protection available to persons established in the Community by, at the same time, allowing the plaintiff easily to identify the court before which he may bring an action and the defendant reasonably to foresee the court before which he may be sued ( Mulox IBC , cited above, paragraph 11;  Rutten , cited above, paragraph 13).
17. Second, the Court takes the view that the rule on special jurisdiction in Article 5(1) of the Convention is justified by the existence of a particularly close relationship between a dispute and the court best placed, in order to ensure the proper administration of justice and effective organisation of the proceedings, to take cognisance of the matter, and that the courts for the place in which the employee is to carry out the agreed work are best suited to resolving disputes to which the contract of employment might give rise (see,  inter alia ,  Mulox IBC , paragraph 17;  Rutten , paragraph 16; and  Weber , cited above, paragraph 39).
18. Third, in matters relating to contracts of employment, the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the Convention must take account of the concern to afford proper protection to the employee as the weaker of the contracting parties from the social point of view. Such protection is best assured if disputes relating to a contract of employment fall within the jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the employee discharges his obligations towards his employer, as that is the place where it is least expensive for the employee to commence or defend court proceedings ( Mulox IBC , paragraphs 18 and 19;  Rutten , paragraph 17; and  Weber , paragraph 40).
19. From this the Court infers that Article 5(1) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that in matters relating to contracts of employment the place of performance of the relevant obligation, for the purposes of that provision, is the place where the employee actually performs the work covered by the contract with his employer ( Mulox IBC , paragraph 20;  Rutten , paragraph 15; and  Weber , paragraph 41). In the case where the employee performs the obligations arising under his contract of employment in several Contracting States, the place where he habitually carries out his work, within the meaning of that provision, is the place where, or from which, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, he in fact performs the essential part of his duties  vis-à-vis  his employer ( Mulox IBC , paragraph 26;  Rutten , paragraph 23; and  Weber , paragraph 58).