After years of doctrinal debate, public consultations and normative efforts, the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation was finally adopted on 12 December 2012. Among the most innovative features of the new Regulation is the extension of the jurisdiction of EU Member States’judges towards employers not domiciled in the Union. According to the author the new rules cannot be labeled as giving raise to «exorbitant grounds of jurisdiction», nor can they be entirely understood unless they are read as the outcome of the efforts of the EU’s Legislator and judges to guarantee the enforcement of European rules aimed at employees’ protection in international employment cases. The article also argues that while waiting for the new Regulation to become effective, the European Court of Justice is anticipating its effects through an unprecedented wide construction of the expression «branch, agency or establishment» ex Art. 18(2) of Regulation No 44/2001. Lastly, the author suggests that the difficulties envisaged as for the recognition and the enforceability of the judgments given on the new grounds of jurisdiction might be overcome in respect of those Countries knowing similarly extensive rules of protective jurisdiction, or otherwise recurring to a principle of comity.
Gulotta, C. (2013). L’estensione della giurisdizione nei confronti dei datori di lavoro domiciliati all’estero: il caso mahamdia e il nuovo regime del regolamento bruxelles i-bis. RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE, 49(3), 619-644.
L’estensione della giurisdizione nei confronti dei datori di lavoro domiciliati all’estero: il caso mahamdia e il nuovo regime del regolamento bruxelles i-bis
GULOTTA, CARLA MARIA
2013
Abstract
After years of doctrinal debate, public consultations and normative efforts, the Recast of the Brussels I Regulation was finally adopted on 12 December 2012. Among the most innovative features of the new Regulation is the extension of the jurisdiction of EU Member States’judges towards employers not domiciled in the Union. According to the author the new rules cannot be labeled as giving raise to «exorbitant grounds of jurisdiction», nor can they be entirely understood unless they are read as the outcome of the efforts of the EU’s Legislator and judges to guarantee the enforcement of European rules aimed at employees’ protection in international employment cases. The article also argues that while waiting for the new Regulation to become effective, the European Court of Justice is anticipating its effects through an unprecedented wide construction of the expression «branch, agency or establishment» ex Art. 18(2) of Regulation No 44/2001. Lastly, the author suggests that the difficulties envisaged as for the recognition and the enforceability of the judgments given on the new grounds of jurisdiction might be overcome in respect of those Countries knowing similarly extensive rules of protective jurisdiction, or otherwise recurring to a principle of comity.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.