## Facts

- A German undertaking engaged a France-based commercial representative to act for it in France.
- A dispute arose from an alleged breach of the representation/employment-type contract.
- The representative sued in France seeking commission and multiple indemnities (including goodwill compensation, pay in lieu of notice, and paid-holiday-related sums).
- The defendant challenged French jurisdiction under the special rule for “matters relating to a contract,” which permits suit in the courts of the place of performance of “the obligation in question.”
- A French first-instance court treated the relevant place of performance as the place where the representative carried out his work in France and accepted jurisdiction.
- A French appellate court treated the relevant place of performance as the place where the employer’s payment obligation was performed (Germany) and rejected French jurisdiction.
- A supreme court referral was made to resolve which contractual obligation controls jurisdiction when the claim rests on several obligations under one employment-type contract.

## Issues

1. When a claim is based on several obligations arising from an employment-type representation contract, which “obligation in question” determines the “place of performance” for special contract jurisdiction?
2. Whether the relevant connecting factor is the employer’s payment obligations or the employee’s work obligation that characterizes the contract.

## Decision

- The court held that, for special contract jurisdiction in this setting, the “obligation in question” is the obligation that characterizes the contract.
- In an employment-type representation contract, the characteristic obligation is the worker’s obligation to perform the agreed work.
- Accordingly, the place of performance is the place where the worker actually carries out the representative activities, not the place from which remuneration is paid.

## Legal Principles

- Special jurisdiction for contractual matters is determined by the place of performance of the obligation that is decisive for the dispute, identified through an autonomous interpretation of the convention’s terms.
- Where multiple obligations are pleaded under a single employment-type contract, courts should not fragment jurisdiction by tracking each individual payment obligation.
- For employment-type contracts, the characteristic obligation is the employee’s performance of work; jurisdiction lies with courts at the place where that work is actually performed.
- The characteristic-obligation approach supports proximity between the dispute and the forum and improves predictability of where a party may be sued.

## Conclusion

In disputes under an employment-type representation contract involving multiple claimed obligations, special contract jurisdiction is anchored to the place where the representative actually performs the work, because the employee’s work obligation characterizes the contract for purposes of determining the relevant place of performance.


Ivenel v. Schwab Maschinenbau, Case C-133/81, [1982] E.C.R. 1891 (Ct. Just. May 26, 1982)