The European Private International Law of Employment provides a descriptive and normative account of the European rules of jurisdiction and choice of law which frame international employment litigation in the courts of EU Member States. The author outlines the relevant rules of the Brussels I Regulation Recast, the Rome Regulations, the Posted Workers Directive and the draft of the Posting of Workers Enforcement Directive, and assesses those rules in light of the objective of protection of employees. By using the UK as a case study, he also highlights the impact of the 'Europeanisation' of private international law on traditional perceptions and rules in this field of law in individual Member States. For example, the author demonstrates that the private international law of the EU is fundamentally reshaping English conflict of laws by almost completely merging the traditionally perceived contractual, statutory and tortious claims into one claim for choice-of-law purposes.

This article examines the rules of jurisdiction in employment matters of Brussels I. It focuses on a paradox in that these rules aim to protect employees jurisdictionally, but in fact fail to accord employees a more favourable treatment when they need it most, namely when they appear as claimants. The article argues that the current rules fail to achieve the objective of employee protection, examines the reasons for this, proposes certain amendments that would improve the existing rules, and thereby engages in the debate surrounding the forthcoming review of Brussels I.

This article argues that the rules of European private international law, which frame international litigation in the courts of the Member States of the EU, fail in their pursuit of the cosmopolitan goals of EU environmental policy. The practical application of these rules is limited to the following two types of case: 1) the case of victims suing an operator whose actions in one country directly cause environmental damage elsewhere, and 2) the case of victims suing a European-based multinational corporation operating in an extraction or chemical industry whose overseas subsidiary, typically in a developing country, causes environmental damage. By arguably not accommodating claims by public authorities against foreign operators, including from other Member States, which are crucial in cases of pure environmental damage, and the cases of the second type in industries other than extraction and chemical, European private international law fails to achieve fully its regulatory potential. Furthermore, the rules of European private international law have the effect of raising the level of environmental protection solely within the EU and at its borders in the

No abstract

In Case C-384/10 Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA the ECJ dealt with a number of issues concerning the choice-of-law rules for employment contracts of the Rome Convention, most importantly the relationship between the connecting factors of the habitual place of work and the engaging place of business, and the interpretation of the latter connecting factor. After demonstrating that the ECJ has deprived it of almost any effect, that it leads to excessive legal uncertainty, unforeseeability of the outcome of litigation, and does not support the objectives of employee protection and proximity, this article concludes that the connecting factor of the engaging place of business should be abolished in European private international law.