国际私法中的劳工行动

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW
Aukje A. H. van Hoek
{"title":"国际私法中的劳工行动","authors":"Aukje A. H. van Hoek","doi":"10.1177/20319525241227836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This contribution deals with both jurisdiction and applicable law with regard to cross-border collective actions in labour law. It demonstrates that the European conflicts rule embodied in Article 9 of the Rome II Regulation is open to diverging interpretations. This can, to a large extent, be explained by the very diverse legal characterisation of industrial action in the national systems of the EU Member States. The connecting factors used in the Rome II Regulation also create specific challenges when applied in the context of industrial action. As a result of these complications, Article 9 Rome II currently fails to fulfil its function of creating legal certainty around the legality and the legal consequences of industrial action with a cross-border element. A further clarification of the scope of Article 9 and the role played by the law of the country in which the industrial action is taken would help to reduce the current confusion and uncertainty. The uncertainty as to the applicable law is exacerbated by the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I bis Regulation which allow, to some extent, for forum shopping. Two provisions of the Brussels I bis Regulation might warrant revision to reduce their negative impact on the exercise of the right to industrial action: the rule on multiple defendants (Article 8(1)) and the rule granting jurisdiction to the place where the damage caused by the industrial action is sustained (Article 7(2)).","PeriodicalId":41157,"journal":{"name":"European Labour Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Industrial action in private international Law\",\"authors\":\"Aukje A. H. van Hoek\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20319525241227836\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This contribution deals with both jurisdiction and applicable law with regard to cross-border collective actions in labour law. It demonstrates that the European conflicts rule embodied in Article 9 of the Rome II Regulation is open to diverging interpretations. This can, to a large extent, be explained by the very diverse legal characterisation of industrial action in the national systems of the EU Member States. The connecting factors used in the Rome II Regulation also create specific challenges when applied in the context of industrial action. As a result of these complications, Article 9 Rome II currently fails to fulfil its function of creating legal certainty around the legality and the legal consequences of industrial action with a cross-border element. A further clarification of the scope of Article 9 and the role played by the law of the country in which the industrial action is taken would help to reduce the current confusion and uncertainty. The uncertainty as to the applicable law is exacerbated by the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I bis Regulation which allow, to some extent, for forum shopping. Two provisions of the Brussels I bis Regulation might warrant revision to reduce their negative impact on the exercise of the right to industrial action: the rule on multiple defendants (Article 8(1)) and the rule granting jurisdiction to the place where the damage caused by the industrial action is sustained (Article 7(2)).\",\"PeriodicalId\":41157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Labour Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241227836\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Labour Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525241227836","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇论文涉及劳动法中跨境集体诉讼的管辖权和适用法律。它表明,《罗马第二规则》第 9 条所体现的欧洲冲突规则可以有不同的解释。这在很大程度上可以解释为欧盟成员国的国家体系对劳工行动的法律定性非常不同。罗马 II 条例》中使用的关联因素在适用于劳工行动时也带来了具体的挑战。由于这些复杂因素,《罗马 II》第 9 条目前未能履行其职能,即为具有跨境因素的劳工行动的合法性和法律后果创造法律确定性。进一步明确第 9 条的范围以及采取劳工行动的国家的法律所发挥的作用,将有助于减少目前的混乱和不确定性。布鲁塞尔条例 I 之二》中关于管辖权的规则在一定程度上允许择地诉讼,这加剧了适用法律的不确定性。布鲁塞尔条例 I 之二》中的两项规定可能值得修订,以减少其对行使劳工行动权的负面影响:关于多个被告的规则(第 8(1)条)和将管辖权授予劳工行动所造成损害的发生地的规则(第 7(2)条)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Industrial action in private international Law
This contribution deals with both jurisdiction and applicable law with regard to cross-border collective actions in labour law. It demonstrates that the European conflicts rule embodied in Article 9 of the Rome II Regulation is open to diverging interpretations. This can, to a large extent, be explained by the very diverse legal characterisation of industrial action in the national systems of the EU Member States. The connecting factors used in the Rome II Regulation also create specific challenges when applied in the context of industrial action. As a result of these complications, Article 9 Rome II currently fails to fulfil its function of creating legal certainty around the legality and the legal consequences of industrial action with a cross-border element. A further clarification of the scope of Article 9 and the role played by the law of the country in which the industrial action is taken would help to reduce the current confusion and uncertainty. The uncertainty as to the applicable law is exacerbated by the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I bis Regulation which allow, to some extent, for forum shopping. Two provisions of the Brussels I bis Regulation might warrant revision to reduce their negative impact on the exercise of the right to industrial action: the rule on multiple defendants (Article 8(1)) and the rule granting jurisdiction to the place where the damage caused by the industrial action is sustained (Article 7(2)).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
28.60%
发文量
29
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信