Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62010CN0384

Case C-384/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, lodged on 29 July 2010 — Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA

IO C 317, 20.11.2010, p. 14–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
29/07/2010
Author:
An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Ollainnis
Type of procedure:
Tarchur le haghaidh réamhrialú
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Case affecting:
Link

20.11.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/14

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, lodged on 29 July 2010 — Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA

(Case C-384/10)

()

2010/C 317/26

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Jan Voogsgeerd

Respondent: Navimer SA

Questions referred

1.

Must the country in which the place of business is situated through which an employee was engaged, within the meaning of Article 6(2)(b) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, (1) be taken to mean the country in which the place of business of the employer is situated through which, according to the contract of employment, the employee was engaged, or the country in which the place of business of the employer is situated with which the employee is connected for his actual employment, even though that employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country?

2.

Must the place to which an employee who does not habitually carry out his work in any one country is obliged to report and where he receives administrative briefings, as well as instructions for the performance of his work, be deemed to be the place of actual employment within the meaning of the first question?

3.

Must the place of business with which the employee is connected for his actual employment within the meaning of the first question satisfy certain formal requirements such as, inter alia, the possession of legal personality, or does the existence of a de facto place of business suffice for that purpose?

4.

Can the place of business of another company, with which the corporate employer is connected, serve as the place of business within the meaning of the third question, even though the authority of the employer has not been transferred to that other company?

(1)  OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1.

Top