Applicable Law in International Mobility

An employee residing in France, employed by a Swiss company, was dismissed according to Swiss procedures, without prior interview or written reasons. The employment contract stipulated the application of Swiss law, but the employee lived and worked in France. The employee contested the dismissal before the Paris labor court, invoking the protection of French law.

To uphold the employee’s claim, the lower courts referred to Article 3 of the Rome Convention, which states that the applicable law is the one chosen by the parties. Article 6 specifies that this choice should not deprive the worker of the protection of the mandatory provisions of the law that would apply in the absence of choice. However, the applicable law in the absence of choice can be that of the country with which the employment contract has the closest connection (Article 6, paragraph 2).

The Court of Cassation has referred to the CJEU the question of whether the national judge should set aside the mandatory provisions of the law of the habitual workplace, which are more protective than those of the chosen law, when there is a closer connection between the contract and the country whose law was chosen by the parties.

This decision could have significant repercussions on international employment contracts and by teleworking in home office, clarifying the attachment criteria and worker protection.

Protecting workers in an international context remains a crucial issue that must be anticipated before the start of any international mobility.