Elefanten Schuh GmbH v. Jacqmain
European Union Court of Justice
[1981] E.C.R. 1671, [1982] 3 C.M.L.R. 1, Case C-150/80 (1981)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
In 1970, Elefanten Schuh GmbH (Elefanten) (defendant), a German company, hired Pierre Jacqmain (plaintiff), a Belgian resident, to work for its Belgian subsidiary, Elefanten NV (defendant), in Belgium, under a contract written in German. In 1975, a problem arose concerning the transfer of Jacqmain’s contract to Elefanten NV, leading to the termination of Jacqmain’s employment. Jacqmain sued Elefanten and Elefanten NV in Belgium. Both companies filed responses, but Elefanten challenged the court’s jurisdiction nine months later. Elefanten asserted that the employment contract contained a forum-selection clause that designated the courts in Kleve, Germany, as having exclusive jurisdiction over disputes. The Belgian court held that under the Protocol of June 3, 1971, on the Interpretation of the Convention of September 27, 1968, on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the convention), the forum-selection clause was permissible. However, Belgian law required employment contracts to be written in Dutch. Therefore, the Belgian court considered the forum-selection clause void and unenforceable. Jacqmain obtained a judgment against the two companies jointly. The companies appealed. Because Elefanten’s appeal addressed jurisdiction and the forum-selection clause, the Belgium Supreme Court referred questions to the European Union Court of Justice, focusing on whether the forum-selection clause was enforceable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.