Ivenel v. Schwab Maschinenbau
European Union Court of Justice
Case C-133/81, [1982] E.C.R. 1891, [1983] 1 C.M.L.R. 538 (1982)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Schwab Maschinebau (Schwab) (defendant), a German company, hired Roger Ivenel (plaintiff), a resident of Strasbourg, France, to work as Schwab’s commercial representative in France. A dispute arose between them, which led Ivenel to sue Schwab in France for sums he alleged Schwab had failed to pay under the employment contract. Schwab objected to the French court’s jurisdiction under the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the convention). Under the convention, a party could be sued regarding contract matters in “the place of performance of the obligation in question.” The French court ruled that the place of the obligation under the convention was the place of the main characteristic of the contract, that is, the employee’s work as a representative in Strasbourg, France. The court therefore rejected Schwab’s argument, and Schwab appealed. The appellate court held that the obligation at issue was the payment due, which was an obligation Schwab would perform from Germany. The appellate court therefore determined that the French court had no jurisdiction, and Ivenel appealed. However, the appellate court believed that the convention’s provision was uncertain and referred the issue to the European Union Court of Justice for interpretation.
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.