header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 December 2013 / Charles Pigott
Issue: 7587 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Business class

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

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

Read All
Sponsored by
NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll