(AGENPARL) – Thu 11 December 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 155/25
Luxembourg, 11 December 2025
Judgment of the Court in Case C-485/24 | Locatrans
Working in several countries: the Court clarifies how the law applicable is
to be determined in the event of a change in the habitual place of work
In 2002, the transport company Locatrans, which is established in Luxembourg, employed a French national as a
driver. The contract of employment provided that it is subject to Luxembourg law. It stated that the driver was to
perform transport activities in several European countries, including France. The driver’s activities gradually focused
increasingly on France, which the employer recognised in 2014, relying on an obligation to pay social security
contributions in France. In the same year, following the driver’s refusal to agree to a reduction in his working time,
Locatrans ended the employment relationship.
The driver brought an action before the conseil de prud’hommes de Dijon (Labour Tribunal, Dijon, France), which
rejected his claims after examining them on the basis of Luxembourg employment law. However, the cour d’appel
de Dijon (Court of Appeal, Dijon, France) set aside that decision, ruling that, under the Rome Convention, 1 French
law was to apply on account of the habitual place of work in France. Locatrans brought an appeal on a point of law.
The Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) then turned to the Court of Justice. The fundamental question is
that of identifying the law applicable, should the parties to the contract not have made a choice of law, where the
employee, having worked for a certain time in one place, is called upon to take up his o r her work activities in a
difference place, which is intended to become the new habitual place of work.
The Court replies that account should be taken of the new place of work, which is intended to become the
habitual place of work, in the examination of all of the circumstances, with a view to determining the law
which would be applicable in the absence of a choice made by the parties.
The Rome Convention limits the choice of law made by the parties, in that such a choice is not to have the result of
depriving the employee of the protection afforded to him by the mandatory rules of the law which would be
applicable in the absence of such a choice. In order to determine the law applicable in such a case, the convention
provides for two connecting factors: that of the country where the employee habitually carries out his work or, in
the absence of the same, the law of the country in which the place of business through which he was engaged is
situated. However, those two connecting factors are not to apply where it appears from the circumstances as a
whole that the contract of employment is more closely connected with another country, in which case the law of
that other country is to apply.
According to the Court of Justice, the first factor does not serve to i dentify a country where, over the course of the
employment relationship as a whole, the habitual place of work has moved from one country to a nother.
Reference must therefore be made to the second factor, that of the place of business through which the employee
was engaged is situated. In the present case, that place of business is located in Bettembourg (Luxembourg).
However, it is for the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) to determine whether it appears from the
circumstances as a whole that the contract of employment is more closely connected with France. In the context of
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
that examination, it will be necessary to take into consideration all the factors that characterise the
employment relationship, such as the driver’s most recent habitual place of work and the obligation to pay social
security contributions in France.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
Article 6 of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (‘the Rome Convention’).
Communications Directorate