Industrial action in private international law

被引:0
作者
van Hoek, Aukje A. H. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Amsterdam, Fac Rechtsgeleerdheid, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Amsterdam, Fac Rechtsgeleerdheid, POB 15842, NL-1001 NH Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
Private international law; industrial action; applicable law; jurisdiction; legal certainty;
D O I
10.1177/20319525241227836
中图分类号
D9 [法律]; DF [法律];
学科分类号
0301 ;
摘要
This contribution deals with both jurisdiction and applicable law with regard to cross-border collective actions in labour law. It demonstrates that the European conflicts rule embodied in Article 9 of the Rome II Regulation is open to diverging interpretations. This can, to a large extent, be explained by the very diverse legal characterisation of industrial action in the national systems of the EU Member States. The connecting factors used in the Rome II Regulation also create specific challenges when applied in the context of industrial action. As a result of these complications, Article 9 Rome II currently fails to fulfil its function of creating legal certainty around the legality and the legal consequences of industrial action with a cross-border element. A further clarification of the scope of Article 9 and the role played by the law of the country in which the industrial action is taken would help to reduce the current confusion and uncertainty. The uncertainty as to the applicable law is exacerbated by the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I bis Regulation which allow, to some extent, for forum shopping. Two provisions of the Brussels I bis Regulation might warrant revision to reduce their negative impact on the exercise of the right to industrial action: the rule on multiple defendants (Article 8(1)) and the rule granting jurisdiction to the place where the damage caused by the industrial action is sustained (Article 7(2)).
引用
收藏
页码:102 / 122
页数:21
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], Case C-149/18 Agostinho da Silva Martins v. Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA (CJEU, 31 January 2019) ECLI:EU:C:2019:84
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1996, Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
[3]  
[Anonymous], C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareforbundet, Svenska Byggnadsar- betareforbundets avdelning 1, Byggettan in Svenska Elektrikerforbundet ECLI:EU:C:2007:809
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2012, REGULATION EU 1215 2
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2007, Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non -contractual obligations (Rome n), L 199/40, Art. 8(1)
[6]  
[Anonymous], Case C-133/08 Intercontainer Interfrigo SC (ICF) v. Balkenende Oosthuizen BV and MIC Operations BV (Grand Chamber 6 October 2009) ECR1-9687,ECLI:EU:C:2009:617
[7]  
[Anonymous], Case C-438/05 International Transport Worker's Federation, Finnish Seamen's Union v. Viking Line ABP, OU Viking Line Eesti (Grand Chamber 11 December 2007) ECR1-10779,ECLI:EU:C:2007:772
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council
[9]  
[Anonymous], HRVATSKE SUME
[10]  
[Anonymous], Case C-18/02 DFDS Torline Caledonia (CJEU 5 February 2004) ECR1-1417,ECLI:EU:C:2004:74