Summary

The ECJ clarifies how to identify the law applicable in the event of a change of the habitual place of work in the course of the employment relationship.

Question

Must Articles 3 and 6 of the Rome Convention be interpreted as meaning that, where an employee, after having worked for a certain time in one place, is called upon to take up his or her activities in a different place, which is intended to become the new habitual place of work for that employee, account should be taken of that latter place in determining the law which would be applicable in the absence of a choice made by the parties?

Ruling 

Articles 3 and 6 of the Rome Convention must  be interpreted as meaning that where an employee, after having worked for a certain time in one place, is called upon to take up his or her work activities in a different place, which is intended to become the new habitual place of work for that employee, account should be taken of that latter place, in the context of the examination of all the circumstances, with a view to determining the law which would be applicable in the absence of a choice made by the parties.