International Jurisdiction in Employment Law: When the Employee Can Seise the French Court

Imagine: you live in Cannes, and you find a job with a German company to sell their products on the Côte d'Azur. The contract is signed, you work, but one day, you are no longer paid. Where do you file a claim? In Germany, at the company's registered office? Or in Cannes, where you perform your work? This is exactly the question that arose in 1985, and which the Cour de cassation decided definitively.

This decision of 16 October 1985 concerns a dispute between a French employee and a German company, regarding a promise of employment that was not honoured. The employee seised the Conseil de prud'hommes of Strasbourg, but the employer contested, arguing that only a German court had jurisdiction. The Cour de cassation ruled in favour of the employee, establishing a clear principle: the court of the place where the work is performed has jurisdiction, even if the employer is based abroad.

For landlord owners, tenants, or real estate professionals, this decision may seem remote. Yet it illustrates a fundamental issue: in which country and before which court can one enforce their rights when the other party is foreign? Whether you are the owner of a flat in Beausoleil rented to a Swiss national, or a property developer in Nice contracting with an Italian company, this question of international jurisdiction is crucial. So let us dissect this landmark judgment.

The facts: a story like many that happen every day

Mr. X, a French employee, receives a promise of employment from the German company Villiger Söhne, specialised in product promotion. The offer is clear: he undertakes to work on French territory, to promote and sell the company's products. Mr. X accepts, but the employer does not follow through. The contract is never executed. Believing he has suffered harm, Mr. X decides to seise the Conseil de prud'hommes of Strasbourg (a city near the German border, where he resides).

The German company contests this seising. According to it, only the German court of the company's registered office has jurisdiction. It invokes the rules of private international law and the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, which governs judicial jurisdiction between countries of the European Economic Community (predecessor of the European Union). The case therefore goes up to the Cour de cassation, which must decide: is the Conseil de prud'hommes of Strasbourg competent or not?

The twist lies in the absence of a written contract: there was only a promise of employment that was not followed by effect. But the Cour de cassation considers that the acceptance of the promise is not contested, and that the essential obligation—the work—was to be performed in France. Consequently, the French court has jurisdiction. One question arises: why Strasbourg rather than Cannes or Nice? Simply because the employee chose to seise that court, and the decision does not challenge that choice as long as the place of performance is in France.

The reasoning of the court — broken down

The Cour de cassation based its decision on Article 5-1° of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968. This text provides for special jurisdiction: in contractual matters, the defendant (the person being sued) may be sued in the courts of the place where the obligation which forms the basis of the claim has been or is to be performed. Concretely, if you sign a contract and the dispute concerns a specific obligation (for example, to pay, deliver, work), you can seise the court of the place where that obligation is to be performed.

In our case, the obligation in dispute was the performance of the promotion work. This work was to take place in France. It does not matter whether the contract is governed by German law or another law: the place of physical performance of the work determines the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The Cour d'appel, upheld by the Cour de cassation, thus considered that "the obligation that was thus linked to a representation contract was to be performed in France, which entailed the jurisdiction of the French labour court."

This decision is not a departure: it applies a consistent rule. The Brussels Convention, now Regulation Brussels I bis (No. 1215/2012), has always favoured the place of performance of the obligation as an alternative jurisdiction criterion (the basic rule being the defendant's domicile). The Cour de cassation simply recalled that this rule also applies to employment contracts, even if the employer is foreign. The arguments of the German company (absence of a written contract, applicable German law) were dismissed because the reality of performance in France was established.

A rhetorical question: why is this decision important? Because it protects the employee, the weaker party, by offering them a forum (court) close to their place of work, without forcing them to litigate abroad. It is an application of the proximity principle.

What this changes for you — practically

You are a landlord owner of a flat in Cannes, and you rent it to a German tenant who no longer pays rent. Where do you sue them? If the contract stipulates that rent is payable at your home (or that the property is located in France), you can seise the competent French court (the court of the location of the property). This decision confirms that the criterion of the place of performance of the obligation (to pay rent) prevails over the debtor's domicile.

If you are a tenant in Beausoleil, and your landlord is a Swiss company that does not carry out urgent repairs, you can act before the French court of the location of the property, because the obligation of maintenance must be performed on site. Caution: if the contract contains a jurisdiction clause (for example, "any dispute shall be brought before the court of Zurich"), this clause may be valid if it is clear and does not override the protective rules for consumers or employees.

For real estate professionals in Nice, this case law serves as a basis for advising your clients. For example, a developer who buys materials from an Italian supplier can, in case of defect, sue the supplier before the court of the place of delivery of the materials (if that place is in France). A concrete example: if a dispute concerns €50,000 in unpaid rent, the cost of proceedings in Germany would be prohibitive (translations, local lawyers, travel). Thanks to this decision, you can act in France, reducing costs by half.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• Draft a written contract specifying the place of performance of obligations. For an employment contract, clearly state that the work is performed in France. For a lease, indicate that rent is payable at the landlord's domicile in France. This will facilitate the determination of the competent court.
• Include a well-thought-out jurisdiction clause. If you deal with a foreign partner, negotiate a clause designating a specific court (for example, the Commercial Court of Nice). Ensure it is not abusive: for a consumer, it must be brought to their attention and not deprive them of the protection of their own court.
• Keep all evidence of performance in France. Invoices, delivery notes, emails, witness statements: any document showing that the work or service was performed in France can be decisive in establishing the jurisdiction of the French court.
• Before suing, check the applicable international conventions. With EU countries, Regulation Brussels I bis applies. With other countries (Switzerland, USA), bilateral conventions or common law may apply. A specialised lawyer can guide you.

Further details: related case law and developments

This 1985 decision is part of a consistent line. A few years earlier, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC) had issued an important judgment, the Tessili judgment (1976), specifying that the place of performance of the obligation should be determined according to the law applicable to the contract. The French Cour de cassation followed this approach.

More recently, in 2015, the CJEU issued the Holterman Ferho judgment (Case C-47/14), concerning a company director. It recalled that the place of performance of the work is the main criterion for employment contracts, even for senior executives. The trend is therefore towards reinforced protection of the employee, by allowing them to seise the court of their habitual place of work.

For the future, with globalisation and teleworking, the notion of "place of performance" becomes more complex. What if the employee works from their home in France for a US company, without ever going to its premises? Case law tends to consider the place where the employee actually carries out their activity, even if it is their home. Courts will have to adapt to these new realities.

What you absolutely must remember

FAQ:

• Can I seise a French court if my employer is foreign? Yes, if you perform your work in France, even partially, you can seise the Conseil de prud'hommes of your place of work.
• What if my contract contains a foreign jurisdiction clause? This clause may be challenged if it is abusive or if it deprives you of the protection of mandatory French rules (e.g., minimum wage or paid leave). Consult a lawyer.
• What are the time limits to act? In employment law, the limitation period is generally 2 years for the performance of the contract (payment of wages) and 5 years for liability actions. For leases, time limits vary (3 years for unpaid rent).
• Does this rule apply to all contracts? Yes, for any contract (sale, service provision, lease), the place of performance of the disputed obligation determines international jurisdiction, subject to valid contrary clauses.

Besoin d'un conseil personnalisé ? Contactez Maître Zakine — première consultation 30 min à 45€.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings—and often much more. Book an appointment →