This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0603
Case C-603/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 20 October 2017 — Peter Bosworth, Colin Hurley v Arcadia Petroleum Limited and others
Case C-603/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 20 October 2017 — Peter Bosworth, Colin Hurley v Arcadia Petroleum Limited and others
Case C-603/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 20 October 2017 — Peter Bosworth, Colin Hurley v Arcadia Petroleum Limited and others
OJ C 437, 18.12.2017, p. 24–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
18.12.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 437/24 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 20 October 2017 — Peter Bosworth, Colin Hurley v Arcadia Petroleum Limited and others
(Case C-603/17)
(2017/C 437/29)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Peter Bosworth, Colin Hurley
Defendants: Arcadia Petroleum Limited and others
Questions referred
1. |
What is the correct test for determining whether a claim advanced by an employer against an employee or former employee (‘an employee’) constitutes a ‘matter relating to’ an individual contract of employment within the meaning of Section 5 to Title II (Articles 18-21) of the Lugano Convention?
|
2. |
If a company and an individual enter into a ‘contract’ (within the meaning of article 5(1) of the Convention), to what extent is it necessary for there to be a relationship of subordination between the company and the individual for that contract to constitute an ‘individual contract of employment’ for the purposes of Section 5? Can such a relationship exist where the individual is able to determine (and does determine) the terms of his contract with the company and has control and autonomy over the day-to-day operation of the company’s business and the performance of his own duties, but the shareholder(s) of the company have the power to procure the termination of the relationship? |
3. |
If Section 5 to Title II of the Lugano Convention only applies to claims which, but for Section 5, would fall within Article 5(1) of the Lugano Convention, what is the correct test to determine whether a claim falls within Article 5(1)?
|
4. |
In circumstances in which:
what is the correct test for determining whether company B’s claim falls within Section 5? In particular:
|