{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-768-24", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-768-24)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-11", "fingerprint": "ewai:eu:20b464", "proof": "sha256:39b5a443502117f8c47a257f68e3ea86e2536844d9c18c0184abb5d0ecd13249", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "eu:c-768-24", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24" ], "kind": "front_matter" }, { "title": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_25", "para_26", "para_27" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "Legal context", "paragraphs": [ "para_28" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "European Union law", "paragraphs": [ "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "The Rome I Regulation", "paragraphs": [ "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraphs": [ "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74" ], "kind": "facts" }, { "title": "Consideration of the questions referred", "paragraphs": [ "para_75" ], "kind": "questions" }, { "title": "The first question", "paragraphs": [ "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "The second question", "paragraphs": [ "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "Costs", "paragraphs": [ "para_106", "para_107" ], "kind": "costs" }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraphs": [ "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114" ], "kind": "operative" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Provisional text", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "9 July 2026 ( * )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations – Article 3 – Choice made by the parties – Article 6 – Contract of employment – Mandatory rules of the law which would be applicable in the absence of choice – Determination of the applicable law – Contract of employment more closely connected with another country – Criteria for assessment – Closer connections resulting, in the performance of a contract of employment, from the parties’ choice of the law applicable to that contract )", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "In Case C‑768/24,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France), made by decision of 23 October 2024, received at the Court on 6 November 2024, in the proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Hortis GRC SA,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "JA,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "France Travail Île-de-France, formerly Pôle emploi Île-de-France,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "THE COURT (Seventh Chamber),", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "composed of F. Schalin, President of the Chamber, M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi (Rapporteur), Judges,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Advocate General: N. Emiliou,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "having regard to the written procedure,", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "–        Hortis GRC SA, by J.-J. Gatineau and V. Rebeyrol, avocats,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "–        JA, by I. Goulet and F. Rocheteau, avocats,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "–        France Travail Île-de-France, by N. Boullez, avocat,", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "–        the French Government, by B. Dourthe, F. du Couëdic and T. Lechevallier, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "–        the Czech Government, by A. Pagáčová, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "–        the European Commission, by J. Hottiaux and S. Noë, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "gives the following", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1; ‘the Rome Convention’).", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "2         The request has been made in proceedings between, of the one part, Hortis GRC SA, a public limited company incorporated under Swiss law having its registered office in Switzerland, and, of the other part, JA, one of its employees, and France Travail Île-de-France, formerly Pôle emploi Île-de-France, concerning the termination of the contract of employment between that company and JA.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "Legal context", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "European Union law", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "The Rome Convention", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "3         Article 3(1) of the Rome Convention states:", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "‘A contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. The choice must be expressed or demonstrated with reasonable certainty by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case. By their choice the parties can select the law applicable to the whole or a part only of the contract.’", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "4         Article 6 of that convention, entitled ‘Individual employment contracts’, provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "‘1.      Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3, in a contract of employment a choice of law made by the parties shall not have the result of depriving the employee of the protection afforded to him by the mandatory rules of the law which would be applicable under paragraph 2 in the absence of choice.", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "2.      Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 4, a contract of employment shall, in the absence of choice in accordance with Article 3, be governed:", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "(a)      by the law of the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract, even if he is temporarily employed in another country;", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "or", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "(b)      if the employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country, by the law of the country in which the place of business through which he was engaged is situated;", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "unless it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country, in which case the contract shall be governed by the law of that country.’", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "The Rome I Regulation", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "5         Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6, and corrigendum OJ 2009 L 309, p. 87; ‘the Rome I Regulation’) replaced the Rome Convention. Article 28 of that regulation provides that the regulation is to apply to contracts concluded as from 17 December 2009.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "6         Under Article 8 of the Rome I Regulation, entitled ‘Individual employment contracts’:", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "‘1.      An individual employment contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties in accordance with Article 3. Such a choice of law may not, however, have the result of depriving the employee of the protection afforded to him by provisions that cannot be derogated from by agreement under the law that, in the absence of choice, would have been applicable pursuant to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "2.      To the extent that the law applicable to the individual employment contract has not been chosen by the parties, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country in which or, failing that, from which the employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract. The country where the work is habitually carried out shall not be deemed to have changed if he is temporarily employed in another country.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "3.      Where the law applicable cannot be determined pursuant to paragraph 2, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country where the place of business through which the employee was engaged is situated.", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "4.      Where it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with a country other than that indicated in paragraphs 2 or 3, the law of that other country shall apply.’", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "French law", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "7         Article L1232-1 of the code du travail (Labour Code) provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "‘Reasons shall be given for any dismissal on personal grounds in accordance with the requirements laid down in this Chapter.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "The justification provided shall be real and serious.’", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "8         Article L1232-2 of that code is worded as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "‘An employer who intends to dismiss an employee shall, before any decision is taken, invite him or her to a pre-dismissal interview.", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "The invitation shall be sent by registered letter or by letter delivered by hand against receipt. That letter shall state the purpose of the invitation.", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "The pre-dismissal interview may not take place less than five working days after delivery of the registered letter or hand delivery of the invitation letter.’", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "9         Article L1232-3 of that code provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "‘During the pre-dismissal interview, the employer shall state the reasons for the proposed decision and shall take note of the employee’s observations.’", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "10       Article L1232-6 of that code provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "‘Where an employer decides to dismiss an employee, it shall notify its decision by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "That letter shall state the reasons or grounds relied on by the employer.", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "It may not be sent less than two working days after the scheduled date of the pre-dismissal interview to which the employee was invited.", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "11       Hortis, which is engaged in the business of providing IT services to undertakings, hired JA, who resides in France, as manager, with effect from 1 September 2007.", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "12       During the performance of the contract of employment between Hortis and JA, which was governed by Swiss law, JA resided and carried out his work in France. By letter of 25 January 2012, he was dismissed in accordance with the formalities for termination laid down in Swiss law, which does not provide for a pre-dismissal interview prior to termination of the contract of employment or require the dismissal letter to contain a statement of reasons.", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "13       JA challenged the procedure followed and the validity of that dismissal before the conseil de prud’hommes de Paris (Labour Tribunal, Paris, France), which, after declaring that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute, dismissed his claims by judgment of 7 June 2016.", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "14       Hearing an appeal brought by JA, the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris, France), by judgment of 29 January 2020, inter alia, declared French law to be the only law applicable to the dispute, pursuant to Article 6 of the Rome Convention, held that the dismissal lacked any real and serious justification and ordered Hortis to pay JA damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "15       In declaring French law to be applicable to the termination of the contract of employment at issue in the main proceedings, the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) held that there could be no derogation by contract from the provisions of French law concerning the pre-dismissal interview and the obligation for the dismissal letter to state reasons, in so far as, in essence, the place of performance of the work was France. Since Swiss law does not provide for a pre-dismissal interview or require the dismissal letter to contain a written statement of reasons, JA should be entitled to the protection of the mandatory rules of French law, which are more favourable in relation to dismissal in the light of the procedural safeguards which they provide.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "16       Hortis brought an appeal against the judgment of the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) of 29 January 2020 before the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France), which is the referring court. In that context, Hortis submits that the cour d’appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) wrongly failed to examine whether Swiss law was applicable due to the fact that the contract of employment at issue in the main proceedings was more closely connected with Switzerland, in particular because JA received a generous salary in Swiss francs (CHF) paid into a Swiss bank account, was a member of Swiss social insurance schemes, was subject to the favourable tax regime applicable to employees working in Switzerland and had a Swiss email address and mobile telephone number.", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "17       In that regard, Hortis relies on the case-law of the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) according to which, where the parties have selected the law applicable to the contract of employment and the courts adjudicating on the substance decide to disregard that law, those courts must establish, first, that the law which they consider to be applicable is that of the place of performance of the contract and, secondly, that that contract is not more closely connected with a country other than that in which the work is habitually carried out.", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "18       In his appeal, JA submits that the fact that the employee concerned habitually carries out his or her work in the same country is a particularly significant factor suggestive of a connection between the contract and that country, which can be disregarded only if there are much more significant factors suggestive of a connection with another country. According to JA, the case-law of the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) relied on by Hortis should be interpreted as meaning that the courts adjudicating on the substance should also examine whether the contract of employment is more closely connected with a country other than France when the employee habitually works in several countries.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "19       The referring court harbours doubts as to the application of the mandatory rules of French law, which afford greater protection than those of Swiss law, in the light of the circumstances of the dispute before it, in which, first, Hortis and JA expressly chose Swiss law as the law governing the contract of employment at issue in the main proceedings and, secondly, JA habitually carried out his work in France. In that regard, it seeks to ascertain whether, pursuant to the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention, it is required to examine whether that contract is more closely connected with Switzerland, taking into account also the connections resulting, in the performance of that contract, from the parties’ choice of the law applicable to it. If so, it enquires whether it must disregard the rules of French law.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "20       In those circumstances, the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "‘(1)      Must the concluding part of Article 6 of the Rome Convention …, be interpreted as meaning that, where the parties choose the law governing an employment contract, the national court must, pursuant to the concluding part of that provision, disregard the mandatory rules, affording greater protection than those of the law chosen by the parties, of the law which the employee seeks to have applied and which would be applicable in the absence of a choice in accordance with Article 6(2) of that convention where it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with the country whose law has been chosen by the parties to govern the employment contract?", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "(2)      If so, is the national court required to take into account the closer connections resulting, in the performance of the employment contract, from the parties’ choice of the applicable law, or must that court disregard them when determining whether the mandatory rules of the law of another country sought by the employee are applicable pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention?’", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "Consideration of the questions referred", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "The first question", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "21       By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where the parties have chosen the law applicable to the contract of employment, national courts must give priority to that law by disregarding the mandatory rules, affording greater protection, of the law which the employee seeks to have applied, when the latter would be applicable, in the absence of choice, under Article 6(2)(a) and (b), if, in the light of the circumstances as a whole, that contract of employment is more closely connected with the country the law of which was chosen by the parties as the law applicable to that contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "22       It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the general rule laid down in Article 3 of the Rome Convention, the contract is to be governed by the law chosen by the parties.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "23       However, Article 6 of the Rome Convention lays down special conflict rules relating to individual contracts of employment which derogate from that general rule: first, in Article 6(1), by limiting the parties’ freedom to choose the applicable law and, secondly, in Article 6(2), by laying down the criteria for determining that law in the absence of such a choice (judgment of 11 December 2025, Locatrans , C‑485/24, EU:C:2025:955, paragraph 34).", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "24       Thus, under Article 6(1) of the Rome Convention, in a contract of employment, a choice of the applicable law made by the parties in accordance with Article 3 thereof is not to have the result of depriving the employee of the protection afforded to him or her by the mandatory rules of the law which would be applicable, in the absence of choice, pursuant to Article 6(2) of that convention (judgment of 11 December 2025, Locatrans , C‑485/24, EU:C:2025:955, paragraph 35).", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "25       Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention sets out the connecting factors of the contract of employment on the basis of which the lex contractus is to be determined, in the absence of a choice made by the parties. Nevertheless, it follows from the reference made by Article 6(1) of that convention to Article 6(2) thereof that the factors referred to in the latter paragraph are also relevant where the parties have chosen the law applicable to the contract. Even in such a scenario, those factors serve to determine which law that is, so as to guarantee, in accordance with Article 6(1), the protection for employees afforded by the mandatory rules of the law which would be applicable by virtue of those factors. The application of those factors can therefore result in the application of a law other than that chosen by the parties to the contract (judgment of 11 December 2025, Locatrans , C‑485/24, EU:C:2025:955, paragraph 36).", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "26       More specifically, the two connecting factors of the contract of employment laid down in Article 6(2)(a) and (b) of the Rome Convention are, respectively, in the first place, that of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ and, in the alternative, if there is no such place, ‘the place of business through which he was engaged’ (judgment of 15 December 2011, Voogsgeerd , C‑384/10, EU:C:2011:842, paragraph 26).", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "27       Furthermore, in accordance with the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention, where it is apparent from the circumstances as a whole that the contract of employment is more closely connected with a country other than that identified on the basis of those two factors, it falls to the national courts to disregard the connecting factors and to apply the law of that other country (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker , C‑64/12, EU:C:2013:551, paragraph 36).", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "28       According to the Court’s case-law, national courts can take other elements of the employment relationship into account where it appears that the elements relating to one or other of the two connecting factors set out in Article 6(2)(a) and (b) of the Rome Convention suggest that the contract is more closely connected with a State other than the State resulting from the application of those two factors (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker , C‑64/12, EU:C:2013:551, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "29       That interpretation is consistent with the wording of the new provision on the conflict rules relating to contracts of employment, introduced by the Rome I Regulation, although that regulation is not applicable to the main proceedings ratione temporis . Under Article 8(4) of that regulation, where it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with a country other than that referred to in Article 8(2) or (3), the law of that other country is to apply (judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker , C‑64/12, EU:C:2013:551, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "30       It should be pointed out that, although the content of Article 8(2) to (4) of the Rome I Regulation differs only slightly from that of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention, its structure reflects the EU legislature’s intention to clarify, by using separate paragraphs, the different steps of the reasoning to be followed by national courts in order to determine the applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties.", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "31       In the present case, the first question is concerned, more specifically, with whether national courts must apply the provisions of the law of the country with which the contract of employment at issue is more closely connected, in circumstances where that law is also the law chosen by the parties to apply to that contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "32       In that regard, it should be observed, first, that the words ‘another country’ in the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention must be construed by reference to the ‘country’ as determined on the basis of one of the two connecting factors laid down in Article 6(2)(a) and (b). Thus, the wording of those provisions does not prevent ‘another country’ from being the country the law of which was chosen by the parties in accordance with Article 3 of that convention.", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "33       Secondly, in paragraph 63 of its judgment of 11 December 2025, Locatrans (C‑485/24, EU:C:2025:955), the Court held that ‘it is thus for the referring court to determine whether, in accordance with the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention, it follows from all of the circumstances that the contract of employment at issue in the main proceedings is more closely connected with France than with Luxembourg, the law of which was chosen by the parties as the law applicable to that contract’. It follows that the Court has expressly recognised that that provision may require the referring court to give priority to the law chosen by the parties as the law applicable to the contract of employment concerned, where that contract is more closely connected with the country the law of which was thus chosen.", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "34       In addition, the Court has also made clear that, in so far as the objective of Article 6 of the Rome Convention is to guarantee adequate protection for employees, that article must ensure that the law applied to the contract of employment is the law of the country with which that contract is most closely connected. That interpretation should not necessarily result in the application, in all cases, of the law most favourable to the employee (judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker , C‑64/12, EU:C:2013:551, paragraph 34). In other words, the application of the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected makes it possible to guarantee adequate protection for employees, without that law necessarily being the most favourable to them.", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "35       Thus, in the present case, if it is apparent from the circumstances as a whole that the contract of employment at issue in the main proceedings is more closely connected with Switzerland, the law of which was chosen by the parties as the law applicable to that contract, than with France, where JA, in performance of that contract, habitually carried out his work, the referring court would be required, pursuant to the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention, to disregard the mandatory rules of French law, which afford greater protection than those of Swiss law.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "36       In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where the parties have chosen the law applicable to the contract of employment, national courts must give priority to that law by disregarding the mandatory rules, affording greater protection, of the law which the employee seeks to have applied and which would be applicable, in the absence of choice, under Article 6(2)(a) and (b), if, in the light of the circumstances as a whole, that contract of employment is more closely connected with the country the law of which was chosen by the parties as the law applicable to that contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "The second question", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "37       By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the mandatory rules of the law of a country other than that referred to in Article 6(2)(a) and (b) are applicable, national courts are required to take into account the closer connections which, in the performance of a contract of employment, result from the parties’ choice of the law applicable to that contract, or whether they are required to disregard them.", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "38       It follows from the Court’s case-law that, in order to assess the connections between a contract of employment and a country other than that in which the employee concerned habitually carries out his or her work or that of the place of business through which the employee was engaged, national courts must take account of all the elements which define the employment relationship. In that regard, they must single out one or more of those elements as being, in their view, the most significant. However, those courts cannot automatically conclude that the rule laid down in Article 6(2)(a) or (b) of the Rome Convention must be disregarded solely because, by dint of their number, the other relevant circumstances – apart from the actual place of work or the country in which the place of business through which the employee was engaged is situated – would result in the selection of another country (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker , C‑64/12, EU:C:2013:551, paragraph 40).", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "39       Furthermore, the Court has also held that, among the significant factors suggestive of a connection with a specific country, account should be taken in particular of the country in which the employee concerned pays taxes on the income from his or her activity and the country in which he or she is covered by a social security scheme and pension, sickness insurance and invalidity schemes. In addition, national courts must also take account of all the circumstances of the case, such as the parameters relating to salary determination and other working conditions (judgment of 12 September 2013, Schlecker , C‑64/12, EU:C:2013:551, paragraph 41).", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "40       In the present case, the referring court seeks to ascertain, more specifically, whether the elements to be taken into consideration in order to identify the country which is more closely connected with the contract of employment, within the meaning of the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention, must also include those resulting, in the performance of the contract of employment, from the parties’ choice of the law applicable to that contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "41       In order to answer that question, it must be noted, first of all, that it is apparent from that provision that, in order to assess whether a contract of employment is more closely connected with another country, account must be taken of the ‘circumstances as a whole’. The wording of that provision does not, therefore, make it possible to exclude from that assessment elements resulting, in the performance of that contract of employment, from the law chosen by the parties as the law applicable to that contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "42       Next, it should be borne in mind that, in so far as the objective of the Rome Convention as a whole is to raise the level of legal certainty by fortifying confidence in the stability of the relationships between the parties to a contract of employment, which presupposes that the system for determining the applicable law is clear and that that law can be predicted with some degree of certainty, the application of the connecting factor provided for in the last limb of Article 6(2) of that convention must, in accordance with that requirement of legal certainty and foreseeability, be based on objective evidence (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 December 2025, Locatrans , C‑485/24, EU:C:2025:955, paragraphs 61 and 62).", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "43       Thus, the choice, made by the parties to a contract of employment, of the law applicable to that contract is not, in itself, a factor which may be taken into account in order to determine whether the contract is more closely connected with a country other than that in which the employee concerned habitually carries out his or her work or that of the place of business through which he or she was engaged.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "44       Lastly, as regards, more specifically, the objective of Article 6 of the Rome Convention, that objective is to ensure adequate protection for employees, generally regarded as the weaker party from a socio-economic point of view in the employment relationship, given the link of subordination characterising such a relationship (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 March 2011, Koelzsch , C‑29/10, EU:C:2011:151, paragraph 40). The purpose of that article is thus to avert the risk of the employer imposing on the employee the application of the law of a country which is objectively unrelated to the reality of the contractual relationship between them.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "45       In order to ensure that the law of the country which best reflects the reality of the contractual relationship between the parties to a contract of employment governs that relationship, account must be taken of all the objective elements which define such a relationship, including those resulting from the choice, made by the parties to that contract, of the law applicable to it.", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "46       However, in the context of that overall assessment, the weight attached to each of the elements of the employment relationship concerned may differ. It thus falls to the national court to weigh up, on the basis of their importance and relevance, each of the elements put before it and to assess which of them appears to be the most significant, irrespective of their number. In that respect, in order to guard against the employer misusing the connecting factors of the employment contract, the national court must examine, inter alia, whether those factors are the result of mutual agreement or whether they were imposed on the employee by the employer.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "47       In the present case, it is thus for the referring court to determine whether, in accordance with the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention, it follows from the circumstances as a whole that the contract of employment at issue in the main proceedings is more closely connected with France or with Switzerland. In the context of that examination, the referring court will have to take account of all the objective elements which define the employment relationship concerned and weigh them up in order to identify the country the law of which best reflects the reality of that relationship.", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "48       In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that the last limb of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a contract of employment is more closely connected with a country other than that referred to in Article 6(2)(a) and (b), national courts must take into account, in the context of an overall assessment, all the objective elements which define the employment relationship concerned, including those resulting, in the performance of that contract, from the parties’ choice of the law applicable to that contract. In the context of that overall assessment, it falls to those courts to weigh up those elements in an appropriate manner.", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "49       Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "1.       The last limb of Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980,", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "must be interpreted as meaning that where the parties have chosen the law applicable to the contract of employment, national courts must give priority to that law by disregarding the mandatory rules, affording greater protection, of the law which the employee seeks to have applied and which would be applicable, in the absence of choice, under Article 6(2)(a) and (b), if, in the light of the circumstances as a whole, that contract of employment is more closely connected with the country the law of which was chosen by the parties as the law applicable to that contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "2.       The last limb of Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980,", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether a contract of employment is more closely connected with a country other than that referred to in Article 6(2)(a) and (b), national courts must take into account, in the context of an overall assessment, all the objective elements which define the employment relationship concerned, including those resulting, in the performance of that contract, from the parties’ choice of the law applicable to that contract. In the context of that overall assessment, it falls to those courts to weigh up those elements in an appropriate manner.", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "[Signatures]", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "*       Language of the case: French.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" } ], "operative_part": "On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:\n\n1.       The last limb of Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980,\n\nmust be interpreted as meaning that where the parties have chosen the law applicable to the contract of employment, national courts must give priority to that law by disregarding the mandatory rules, affording greater protection, of the law which the employee seeks to have applied and which would be applicable, in the absence of choice, under Article 6(2)(a) and (b), if, in the light of the circumstances as a whole, that contract of employment is more closely connected with the country the law of which was chosen by the parties as the law applicable to that contract.\n\n2.       The last limb of Article 6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980,\n\nmust be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine whether a contract of employment is more closely connected with a country other than that referred to in Article 6(2)(a) and (b), national courts must take into account, in the context of an overall assessment, all the objective elements which define the employment relationship concerned, including those resulting, in the performance of that contract, from the parties’ choice of the law applicable to that contract. In the context of that overall assessment, it falls to those courts to weigh up those elements in an appropriate manner.\n\n*       Language of the case: French.", "word_count": 5267, "cites": [ "C-485/24", "C-384/10", "C-64/12", "C-29/10" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "1e7f6dc614282c91773369ea81e7a8d6dff8541a82dd9d0d61acc67d432061cd", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0768", "fetched_at": "2026-09-28T06:30:10.24+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-768-24", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-768-24", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-768-24", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-768-24", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "1e7f6dc614282c91773369ea81e7a8d6dff8541a82dd9d0d61acc67d432061cd", "recomputed_sha256": "1e7f6dc614282c91773369ea81e7a8d6dff8541a82dd9d0d61acc67d432061cd", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-12T01:26:26.563Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:39b5a443502117f8c47a257f68e3ea86e2536844d9c18c0184abb5d0ecd13249", "version": "legal-2026-10-11", "expires": "2026-10-13T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-11+legal-2026-10-11+2026-10-11T20:37:51", "content_hash": "sha256:39b5a443502117f8c47a257f68e3ea86e2536844d9c18c0184abb5d0ecd13249", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-12T02:26:27.385Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-768-24", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-768-24" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-768-24" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-768-24" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }