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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll