EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CN0029
Case C-29/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 January 2010 — Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
Case C-29/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 January 2010 — Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
Case C-29/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 January 2010 — Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
OJ C 80, 27.3.2010, p. 16–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
27.3.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 80/16 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 January 2010 — Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
(Case C-29/10)
2010/C 80/30
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Cour d’appel
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Heiko Koelzsch
Defendant: État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
Questions referred
Is the rule of conflict in Article 6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, (1) which states that an employment contract is governed by the law of the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the situation where the employee works in more than one country, but returns systematically to one of them, that country must be regarded as that in which the employee habitually carries out his work?
(1) Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).