Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Court Agreements in favour of Third States (still on aff. C-154/11)

August 15, 2012/in /by Marta Requejo
image_pdfimage_print

The contract of employment between Mr. Mahamdia and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (see previous post) contained an agreement on jurisdiction which read as follows:

‘VI. Settlement of disputes

In the event of differences of opinion or disputes arising from this contract, the Algerian courts alone shall have jurisdiction.’

As already said in the previous post, Mr. Mahamdia appealed against the judgment of the Arbeitsgericht Berlin (2 July 2008) to the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Higher Labour Court, Berlin and Brandenburg). By its judgment of 14 January 2009 the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg rejected the agreement on jurisdiction, considering that it did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 21 of Regulation 44/2001, as it had been concluded before the dispute arose and referred the employee to the Algerian courts exclusively.

The People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria appealed to the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court). By judgment of 1 July 2010, the Bundesarbeitsgericht set aside the judgment appealed against and remitted the case to the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin?Brandenburg. The second question referred to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling by this national court was as follows

2. (…) Can an agreement on jurisdiction, reached before the dispute arises, confer jurisdiction on a court outside the scope of Regulation 44/2001, if, by virtue of the agreement on jurisdiction, the jurisdiction conferred under Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation 44/2001 would not apply?’

To which the ECJ (Grand Chamber), streching out once again the impact of the Regulation, said that

“Article 21(2) of Regulation 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement on jurisdiction concluded before a dispute arises falls within that provision in so far as it gives the employee the possibility of bringing proceedings, not only before the courts ordinarily having jurisdiction under the special rules in Articles 18 and 19 of that regulation, but also before other courts, which may include courts outside the European Union.”

(Click here for the whole text).

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Marta Requejo https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Marta Requejo2012-08-15 07:16:302012-08-15 07:16:49Court Agreements in favour of Third States (still on aff. C-154/11)

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
Link to: On What an Embassy is (for the Purposes of Regulation 44/01) Link to: On What an Embassy is (for the Purposes of Regulation 44/01) On What an Embassy is (for the Purposes of Regulation 44/01) Link to: Word Class Actions (ed. by P.G. Karlsgodt, OUP) Link to: Word Class Actions (ed. by P.G. Karlsgodt, OUP) Word Class Actions (ed. by P.G. Karlsgodt, OUP)
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top