Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012CN0064

    Case C-64/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — A. Schlecker, trading under the name, ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’ , other party: M.J. Boedeker

    IO C 126, 28.4.2012, p. 5–5 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    28.4.2012   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 126/5


    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 8 February 2012 — A. Schlecker, trading under the name, ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’, other party: M.J. Boedeker

    (Case C-64/12)

    2012/C 126/09

    Language of the case: Dutch

    Referring court

    Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: A. Schlecker, trading under the name, ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’

    Defendant: M.J. Boedeker

    Questions referred

    1.

    Should Article 6(2) (1) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations be interpreted in such a way that, if an employee carries out the work in performance of the contract not only habitually but also for a lengthy period and without interruption in the same country, the law of that country should be applied in all cases, even if all other circumstances point to a close connection between the employment contract and another country?

    2.

    Does an affirmative answer to Question 1 require that the employer and the employee, when concluding the contract of employment, or at least at the commencement of the work, intended, or at least were aware of the fact, that the work would be carried out over a long period and without interruption in the same country?


    (1)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).


    Top