Yesterday (20 October 2022), the Court of Justice delivered the judgment on the case No C-604/20, ROI Land Investments Ltd v. FD.
In the dispute in the main proceeding, FD, domiciled in Germany, worked a few months for ROI Land, a Canadian company. As mutually agreed, their relationship was transferred to a new Swiss company (R Swiss AG), of which ROI Land was the mother company. At the same time, FD and ROI concluded a “warranty agreement” whereby ROI assumed full responsibility of the fulfilment of the obligations due by the Swiss company towards FD. A few months later, R Swiss AG dismissed FD. The latter challenged the dismissal before German courts suing, at first, R Swiss AG, obtaining a final judgement that declared the dismissal null and void and ordered the Swiss company to pay what was due, and, subsequently, following the default of R Swiss AG, ROI Land.
The case against ROI Land poses many questions on the applicability of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 and Regulation (EC) 593/2008: (i) the characterization of the legal relationship between FD and ROI Land as individual employment contract; (ii) the relationship between jurisdictional rules on individual employment contract of Regulation No 1215/2012 and residual national jurisdictional rules applicable to defendant non domiciled in a Member State; and (iii) the definition of the concept of professional activity for the applicability of the rules on consumer contract.
On individual employment contract and on consumer contract, the readers of RDIPP may refer to:
Mari, 1981, No 1, 51 ff.; Mosconi, 2003, No 1, 5 ff.; Clerici, 2003, No 4, 809 ff.; Pizzolante, 2006, No 4, 987 ff.; Gulotta, 2013, No 3, 619 ff.; De Götzen, 2014, No 3, 529 ff.
Moreover, see, in our Book Series:
Pocar, Viarengo, Villata (eds.), Book No 76; Piroddi, Book No 79; Ferrari, Ragno (eds.), Book No 80.