header-logo header-logo

Business class

06 December 2013 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7587 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
web_pigott

Cross-border commuters struggle to illuminate the law. Charles Pigott reports

International commuters featured in two recent cases which have shed some light on the interpretation of the two EU regulations commonly in play when employees cross national boundaries in the course of their work. But some issues still remain obscure.

 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has considered the interpretation of the employment provisions of the Brussels Regulation (EC 44/2001) which determines which national court has jurisdiction when the employer is domiciled in a member state. For its part, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has looked at the choice of law provisions (now found in the Rome Regulation (EC 593/2008)) that apply when an employee commutes from a member state where the employer is based to work exclusively in another country.

Jurisdiction

Faced with a claim from a worker who lives in one country and works in another, the court’s first task is often to assess whether it has jurisdiction. The Brussels Regulation, which replaced the Brussels Convention in March 2002, will be the first

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll