05/03/2013 16:54:25.844C00642012CENL_Cnc_Mess_Fr.xmlTRA-DT-FR-CONCL-C-0064-2012-201302120-01_00.xmlCNCRPLitige0DEFÉDITION PROVISOIRE DU 11/12/20121Texte pour publication00-0Document30C:\TEMP\canevas\Litige.xml3/5/2013False0CNC§111;pos=48089:lng=EN§CONVERSION§cahilma@TRA-DOC-EN-CONCL-C-0064-2012-201302120-06_90Doc2XML SUIVI2 TRAD Prod 2003C:\Program Files\Doc2XML\XML\Serveur_SUIVI2_TRAD.xmlO:\Flux\Suivi_II\conversion\doc2xml_trad\In\UNCLASSIFIEDNormalIRECFalseFalse()Doc2XML_2003_PC_TRAD SV2_PUBC:\Documents and Settings\gti_prod\Application Data\Doc2XML\PR_Doc2XML_2003_SV2_PUB.xmlP:\GTiWebTools\Automates\Suivi_II\conversion\doc2xml_pub\In\OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
05/03/2013 16：54：25.844C00642012CENL_Cnc_Mess_Fr.xmlTRA-DT-EN-CONCL-C-0064-2012-201302120-01_00.xmlCNCRPLitige0DEF2012/11/121临时版发布文本00-0Document30C：\TEMP\canvas\Dispute.xml3/5/2013False0CNC§111;pos=48089：lng=EN§conversion§cahilma@TRA-DOC-EN-CONCL-C-0064-2012-201302120-06_90Doc2XML SUIVI2 TRAD Prod 2003C：\Program Files\Doc2XML\XML\Serveur_SUIVI2_TRAD.xmlO：\Flux\Suivi_II\conversion\doc2xml_trad\In\UNCLASSIFIEDNormalIRECFalseFalse（）Doc2XML_2003_PC_TRAD SV2_PUBC：\Documents and Settings\gti_prod\Application Data\Doc2XML\PR_Doc2XML_2003_SV2_PUB.xmlP：\GTiWebTools\Automatons\Suivi_II\conversion\doc2xml_pub\In\OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

WAHL

delivered on 16April 2013 (2)¹

Case C64/12

Anton Schlecker,trading under the name ‘Firma Anton Schlecker’
Anton Schlecker，以“Firma Anton Schlecker”的名义进行交易

v

Melitta Josefa Boedeker

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands))
（请求荷兰法院作出初步裁决）

(Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations— Contract of employment— Applicable law in the absence of a choice made by the parties— Law of the country in which the work is habitually carried out— Possibility of disregarding that law on account of the existence of closer connections with another country— Implications)
（《关于合同义务适用法律的罗马公约》——雇用合同——当事方未作出选择时的适用法律——惯常从事工作的国家的法律——由于与另一国存在更密切的联系而无视该法律的可能性——影响）

I–Introduction
I–引言

In the present case, the Court is called upon to interpret Article6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19June 1980 (3) ²(‘the Rome Convention’), a provision which governs the determination of the law applicable to an employment contract in the absence of a choice expressed by the parties. The questions referred in this case by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) (or ‘the referring court’) have arisen in the course of a dispute, resulting from a unilateral change in the workplace, between MrsBoedeker, a German national and resident, who pursued her professional activity without interruption and exclusively in the Netherlands for more than 11 years, and her employer, Firma Anton Schlecker (‘Schlecker’), which is established in Germany. (4)³
在本案中，法院被要求解释1980年6月19日在罗马开放供签署的《公约》第6（2）条（3）（ ² “《罗马公约》”），该条规定了在当事方未作出选择的情况下确定适用于雇佣合同的法律。荷兰最高法院（或“转介法院”）在本案中提出的问题是在德国国民和居民Boedeker夫人之间因工作场所单方面变更而产生的纠纷过程中产生的，Boedeker夫人不间断地从事其专业活动，并且只在荷兰从事了11年以上的职业活动。 以及她的雇主 Firma Anton Schlecker （'Schlecker'），该公司在德国成立。（4） ³

The Court is requested, more specifically, to rule on the implications of the second part of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention, which makes it possible not to apply the law selected on the strength of the connections expressly contemplated in points (a) and (b) thereof, in the event that it ‘appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country’. Accordingly, the Court is being asked to expand upon the line of authority devolving fromKoelzsch (5) andVoogsgeerd. (6) Although, inICF, (7) the Court has already ruled on the conditions for the implementation of the general ‘exception’ clause under the second sentence of Article4(5) of the Rome Convention and although it has also had occasion, inKoelzschandVoogsgeerd, to provide significant clarification as regards the relative weight to be attributed to the connection criteria referred to in Article6(2)(a) and (b), this is the first time that a question has been referred concerning the implications of the ‘escape clause’, (8)⁴ specific to individual employment contracts, set out in the second part of Article6(2).
更具体地说，请法院就《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款第二部分的影响作出裁决，该款规定，如果“从整体情况来看，合同与另一国的联系更为密切”，则有可能不适用根据该公约（a）和（b）点明确规定的联系而选择的法律。因此，要求法院扩大从Koelzsch（5）和Voogsgeerd下放的权力范围。（6） 虽然在ICF案中，（7）法院已经就《罗马公约》第4条第（5）款第二句中实施一般“例外”条款的条件作出了裁决，尽管它也有机会在KoelzschandVoogsgeerd案中就第6条第（2）款（a）项和（b）项所述的联系标准的相对权重作出重大澄清， 这是首次就第6条第（2）款第二部分规定的“免责条款”（8） ⁴ 具体到个人雇佣合同的影响提出问题。

The question is of undoubted importance, (9)⁵ since it relates, in a context of international mobility of workers, to an issue which has arisen in a number of disputes concerning individual employment relationships. Moreover, the diverse nature of the approaches adopted by national courts confronted with this issue demonstrates its complexity. It seems necessary, in the present case, to adopt an approach which accommodates not only the need for predictability of approach and legal certainty, which governed the adoption of the relevant rules, (10) ⁶but also the requirements of proximity and protection for the employee— which must, in accordance with the wishes expressed by the draftsmen of the Rome Convention, (11)⁷ but more broadly, in accordance with the guidance generally established by the Court, (12)⁸ be given some weight.
这个问题无疑具有重要意义，（9） ⁵ 因为在工人国际流动的背景下，它涉及到一些关于个人雇佣关系的争端中出现的问题。此外，各国法院在处理这一问题时所采取的办法的多样性表明了其复杂性。在本案中，似乎有必要采取一种办法，不仅要考虑到方法的可预测性和法律确定性的需要，而这种做法是有关规则的通过所依据的，（10） ⁶ 而且要考虑到对雇员的接近和保护的要求——这必须符合《罗马公约》起草者所表达的愿望。（11） ⁷ 但更广泛地说，根据法院通常制定的指导意见，（12） ⁸ 应给予一定的重视。

II–Legal framework

Article3 of the Rome Convention, entitled ‘Freedom of choice’, provides:
《罗马公约》题为“选择的自由”的第3条规定：

‘1.A contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. The choice must be expressed or demonstrated with reasonable certainty by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case. By their choice the parties can select the law applicable to the whole or a part only of the contract.
'1.合同应受当事人选择的法律管辖。该选择必须通过合同条款或案件情况以合理的确定性表达或证明。当事人可以选择适用于全部或部分合同的法律。

…’

For situations in which no choice has been indicated, Article4 of the Rome Convention identifies a general yardstick which can be used in the case of all contracts for the purposes of determining the applicable law: the country with which the contract is most closely connected. That provision also lists a number of specific criteria on the basis of which it is possible to arrive at a presumption as to the country with which the contract has such a connection. Article4 of the Rome Convention is worded as follows:
对于没有作出选择的情况，《罗马公约》第4条确定了确定适用法律时可用于所有合同的一般标准：合同与哪个国家联系最密切。该条文还列举了一些具体标准，根据这些标准可以推定合同与哪个国家有这种联系。《罗马公约》第4条的措辞如下：

‘1.To the extent that the law applicable to the contract has not been chosen in accordance with Article3, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected. …
'1.To 未根据第3条选择适用于合同的法律的，则合同应受与其关系最密切的国家的法律管辖。…

…

5.Paragraph2 shall not apply if the characteristic performance cannot be determined, and the presumptions in paragraphs2, 3 and 4 shall be disregarded if it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country.’
5.如果无法确定特征履行，则第2款不适用，如果从整体情况来看，合同与另一国的联系更为密切，则第2款、第3款和第4款的推定应予不予考虑。

Article6 of the Rome Convention lays down special conflict rules relating to individual contracts of employment, which derogate from the general rules under Articles3 and 4, which concern, respectively, the freedom of the parties to choose the applicable law and the criteria for determining that law in the absence of such a choice. Article6 is worded as follows:
《罗马公约》第6条规定了与个人雇用合同有关的特别冲突规则，这些规则减损了第3条和第4条规定的一般规则，这些规则分别涉及当事方选择适用法律的自由和在没有这种选择的情况下确定该法律的标准。第6条的措辞如下：

‘1.Notwithstanding the provisions of Article3, in a contract of employment a choice of law made by the parties shall not have the result of depriving the employee of the protection afforded to him by the mandatory rules of the law which would be applicable under paragraph2 in the absence of choice.
'1.尽管有第3条的规定，但在雇用合同中，当事方作出的法律选择不应导致剥夺雇员在没有选择的情况下根据第2款适用的强制性法律规则给予他的保护。

2.Notwithstanding the provisions of Article4, a contract of employment shall, in the absence of choice in accordance with Article3, be governed:
2.尽管有第4条的规定，但在根据第3条没有选择的情况下，雇佣合同应受以下约束：

(a)

by the law of the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract, even if he is temporarily employed in another country; or
根据雇员惯常履行合同工作所在国家/地区的法律，即使他临时受雇于另一个国家;或

(b)

if the employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country, by the law of the country in which the place of business through which he was engaged is situated,
如果雇员不习惯性地在任何一个国家/地区开展工作，则根据其受雇营业地所在国家/地区的法律，

unless it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country, in which case the contract shall be governed by the law of that country.’
除非从整体情况来看，合同与另一国的联系更为密切，在这种情况下，合同应受该国法律管辖。

III–The facts giving rise to the dispute and the main proceedings
三、引起争议的事实和主要诉讼程序

Schlecker is a company governed by German law which is active in the retailing of beauty and health products. Although Schlecker is established in Germany, it has many branches in several Member States of the European Union.
Schlecker 是一家受德国法律管辖的公司，活跃于美容和健康产品的零售领域。虽然施莱克在德国成立，但它在欧盟的几个成员国设有许多分支机构。

Under an initial employment contract, MrsBoedeker— a German national and resident— was employed by Schlecker and performed her duties in Germany from 1December 1979 to 1January 1994.
根据最初的雇用合同，Boedeker夫人是德国国民和居民，受雇于Schlecker，并于1979年12月1日至1994年1月1日在德国履行职责。

Under a further contract, concluded on 30November 1994, MrsBoedeker was appointed by Schlecker, with effect from 1March 1995 until the summer of 2006, as distribution manager (‘Geschäftsführerin/Vertrieb’) for the entire territory of the Netherlands. In that capacity, MrsBoedeker in fact performed her duties in the Netherlands.
根据1994年11月30日签订的另一份合同，Schlecker任命Boedeker夫人为荷兰全境的分销经理（“Geschäftsführerin/Vertrieb”），从1995年3月1日至2006年夏季。事实上，Boedeker夫人以这种身份在荷兰履行了她的职责。

By letter of 19June 2006, Schlecker informed MrsBoedeker that her position as manager for the Netherlands would be abolished with effect from 30June 2006 and invited her to take up, under the same contractual conditions, the post of head of accounts (‘Bereichsleiterin Revision’) in Dortmund (Germany), with effect from 1July 2006.
Schlecker在2006年6月19日的信中通知Boedeker夫人，她作为荷兰经理的职位将于2006年6月30日取消，并邀请她在相同的合同条件下担任多特蒙德（德国）的会计主管（“Bereichsleiterin Revision”），自2006年7月1日起生效。

Although MrsBoedeker lodged an objection on 4July 2006 against that notice of amendment (‘Änderungskündigung’), she took up her post as regional manager in Dortmund.
尽管Boedeker夫人于2006年7月4日对该修正案（“Änderungskündigung”）提出异议，但她还是担任了多特蒙德的区域经理。

On 5July 2006, MrsBoedeker declared herself unfit for work on medical grounds.

As from 16August 2006, she received benefits from a German health insurance fund (‘Krankenkasse’).
自2006年8月16日起，她领取了德国健康保险基金（“Krankenkasse”）的福利。

Subsequently, various actions were brought both by MrsBoedeker and by Schlecker before the courts.
随后，Boedeker夫人和Schlecker向法院提起了各种诉讼。

In one such action, the Kantonrechter te Tiel (Cantonal Court, Tiel), in a decision on the merits, allowed MrsBoedeker’s claim that Netherlands law should be declared applicable to her employment contract with Schlecker. It accordingly terminated that contract with effect from 15December 2007 and awarded MrsBoedeker compensation in the amount of EUR557651.52 (gross).
在其中一项诉讼中，州法院（Cantonérér te Tiel）在一项关于案情的裁决中，准许了Boedeker夫人的主张，即荷兰法律应宣布适用于她与Schlecker的雇用合同。因此，法院从2007年12月15日起终止了该合同，并判给Boedeker夫人EUR557651.52（毛额）的赔偿金。

Schlecker appealed that decision before the Gerechtshof te Arnhem (Regional Court of Appeal, Arnhem), which, by judgment of 15December 2009, upheld the judgment of the Kantonrechter te Tiel as to the determination of the law applicable to the contract. It pointed out inter alia that, at the time of concluding the contract, the parties had not been aware— or at least not sufficiently aware— of the cross-border dimension which the employment contract might acquire and that it could not be construed in retrospect from the facts that a tacit choice of German law had been made. The Gerechtshof te Arnhem further found that, under Article6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention, it was the Netherlands law which applied in principle to the employment contract between Schlecker and MrsBoedeker and that the various factors put in evidence by Schlecker did not point to circumstances capable of establishing that the employment contract was more closely connected with Germany than with the Netherlands.
Schlecker向阿纳姆地区上诉法院提出上诉，该法院于2009年12月15日作出判决，维持了Kantonrechter te Tiel关于确定合同适用法律的判决。它特别指出，在订立合同时，当事方并不了解——或至少没有充分了解——雇用合同可能涉及的跨国界问题，而且不能从事实中追溯到德国法律的默许选择来解释。Gerechtshof te Arnhem法院进一步认定，根据《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款（a）项，荷兰法律原则上适用于Schlecker和Boedeker夫人之间的雇用合同，Schlecker提出的各种证据因素并未表明能够证明雇用合同与德国的联系比与荷兰的联系更密切的情况。

Hearing the appeal on a point of law, lodged by Schlecker against the final judgment of the Gerechtshof te Arnhem ruling on the law applicable to the employment contract, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden stated that it had doubts as to the interpretation of the implications of the second part of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention, which makes it possible not to apply the law selected on the strength of one of the connections expressly contemplated in Article6(2)(a) and (b) of that convention, in the event that it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country.
荷兰法院在审理Schlecker对Gerechtshof te Arnhem案关于雇用合同适用法律的裁决的最终判决提出的法律问题上诉时指出，它对《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款第二部分含义的解释表示怀疑。 这样一来，如果从整体情况来看，合同与另一国的联系更为密切，则有可能不适用根据该公约第6条第（2）款（a）项和（b）项明确设想的联系之一而选择的法律。

IV–The questions referred and the procedure before the Court
四、提交的问题和法院审理的程序

In those circumstances, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
在这种情况下，荷兰议会决定中止诉讼程序，并将下列问题提交法院作出初步裁决：

‘(1)

Is Article6(2) of the Rome Convention to be interpreted in such a way that, if an employee carries out the work in performance of the contract not only habitually but also for a lengthy period and without interruption in the same country, the law of that country should be applied in all cases, even if all other circumstances point to a close connection between the employment contract and another country?
对《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款的解释是否应是这样的：如果雇员不仅习惯性地履行合同，而且在同一国家长期且不间断地履行合同，则该国法律应适用于所有情况，即使所有其他情况都表明雇用合同与另一国之间有密切联系？

(2)

Does an affirmative answer to [the first q]uestion … require that, when concluding the contract of employment, or at least at the commencement of the work, the employer and the employee intended— or were at least aware of the fact— that the work would be carried out over a long period and without interruption in the same country?’
对[第一个问题]的肯定回答是否...在订立雇佣合同时，或至少在工作开始时，雇主和雇员打算——或至少知道这一事实——工作将在同一国家长期进行，而不会中断？

Written observations have been submitted by MrsBoedeker, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria and the European Commission. No request to hold a hearing was submitted.
Boedeker夫人、荷兰王国、奥地利共和国和欧洲联盟委员会提交了书面意见。没有提出举行听证会的请求。

V–Analysis

In order to be able to answer the questions referred by the national court, which relate, in essence, to the scope of the qualification made under the second part of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention, it seems to me necessary to provide a number of clarifications as to themodus operandi, as I see it, of the mechanism established by that convention, as interpreted by the Court, for the purposes of determining the law applicable to individual employment contracts.
为了能够回答国家法院提出的问题，这些问题实质上涉及根据《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款第二部分所作的限定的范围，在我看来，有必要就该公约所确立的机制的作案工作主题作出一些澄清。 根据法院的解释，以确定适用于个人雇佣合同的法律。

A–The modus operandi of the mechanism, provided for under the Rome Convention, for determining the law applicable to individual employment contracts
A-《罗马公约》规定的确定适用于个人雇佣合同的法律的机制的运作方式

I would point out that, in accordance with Article3 of the Rome Convention, freedom of contract is the prevailing principle in determining the law applicable to contractual obligations. For situations in which no choice has been made by the parties, Article4 of that convention provides, by way of a standard and a general principle, (13) that the yardstick to be used in determining the applicable law is that of the country with which the contract is ‘most closely connected’, a concept which paragraphs2, 3 and 4 of Article4 link with a number of presumptions. Article4(5) lays down an ‘exception’ clause which makes it possible to disregard those presumptions. Those conflict rules must be regarded as abstract and neutral, in that they do not seek to favour one party to the contract to the detriment of the other. Accordingly, the substantive content of the laws concerned is not taken into account in determining the applicable law.
我要指出的是，根据《罗马公约》第3条，合同自由是确定合同义务适用法律的普遍原则。对于当事人未作出选择的情况，该公约第4条以标准和一般原则的方式规定，（13） 确定适用法律的标准是合同“联系最密切”的国家的标准，第4条第2款、第3款和第4款将这一概念与若干推定联系起来。第4条第（5）款规定了一项“例外”条款，使得可以无视这些推定。这些冲突规则必须被视为抽象和中立的，因为它们不试图偏袒合同一方而损害另一方。因此，在确定适用法律时不考虑有关法律的实质内容。

However, along the same lines as the provision made for the purposes of determining the law applicable to consumer contracts (Article5), Article6 of the Rome Convention sets out specific conflict-of-law rules concerning individual employment contracts. In accordance with the objective pursued by the draftsmen of the Rome Convention, (14) it is therefore commonly accepted that, unlike the general rules laid down in Articles3 and 4, the relevant rules governing conflict of laws are not entirely neutral, but predicated on the idea of protecting the employee. Guided by the principles established in interpreting the Brussels Convention, the Court has accordingly ruled that the objective of Article6 of the Rome Convention was to guarantee adequate protection to the employee. (15)
然而，《罗马公约》第6条与为确定消费者合同适用法律的目的而作出的规定（第5条）相同，规定了关于个人雇佣合同的具体法律冲突规则。根据《罗马公约》起草者所追求的目标，（14） 因此，人们普遍认为，与第3条和第4条规定的一般规则不同，有关法律冲突的规则并非完全中立，而是以保护雇员为前提的。因此，在解释《布鲁塞尔公约》时所确立的原则的指导下，法院裁定，《罗马公约》第6条的目的是保证对雇员的充分保护。(15)

Two essential aspects of Article6 of the Rome Convention illustrate that special nature.
《罗马公约》第6条的两个基本方面说明了这种特殊性质。

First, Article6(1) of the Rome Convention significantly moderates the operation of the principle of freedom of contract. By way of derogation from Article3, that provision prohibits the parties to the contract from depriving the employee, through the choice of applicable law agreed, of the protection which he would enjoy under the mandatory rules of the law which would have been applicable to the employment contract if they had not expressed any choice. In dealing with a contract in which the parties have expressed their choice as to the law applicable to it, the court must first determine, in accordance with the parameters set in Article6(2), which law would apply to the employment contract in the absence of choice; it must then consider whether that law contains mandatory rules for the protection of employees; and, lastly, it must apply, from among those mandatory rules, those which are more favourable to workers than the relevant provisions of the law chosen by the parties, which remains applicable as to the remainder.
首先，《罗马公约》第6条第（1）款大大缓和了合同自由原则的实施。作为对第3条的克减，该条款禁止合同当事人通过选择商定的适用法律来剥夺雇员根据强制性法律规则所享有的保护，如果他们没有表示任何选择，这些法律规则本来适用于雇用合同。在处理当事人对适用法律表示选择的合同时，法院必须首先根据第6条第（2）款规定的参数确定，在没有选择的情况下，哪项法律将适用于雇佣合同;然后，它必须考虑该法律是否包含保护雇员的强制性规则;最后，它必须从这些强制性规则中适用那些比当事方选择的法律的有关规定更有利于工人的规则，而这些法律的有关规定仍然适用于其余规则。

It is, in my opinion, that provision in particular which expresses the objective, pursued by the draftsmen of the Rome Convention, (16) of protecting the employee, traditionally regarded as the weaker party from a socio-economic point of view. Indeed, given the element of subordination which characterises the employment relationship, the employee runs the risk that an employer will impose on him the application of the law of a country which is objectively unrelated to the reality of the contractual relationship between them.
在我看来，正是这一条款特别表达了《罗马公约》起草者所追求的目标，（16）即保护从社会经济角度来看传统上被视为弱势一方的雇员。事实上，鉴于雇佣关系的从属因素，雇员面临雇主将适用一个国家法律强加给他的风险，而该法律在客观上与他们之间的合同关系的实际情况无关。

As has been pointed out, the connection chosen in matters of employment contracts is a connection of proximity, since the Rome Convention seeks to determine the country with which the employment contract is most closely connected. (17) The objective is not systematically to favour the employee, but rather to protect him by making applicable to him the mandatory rules of the law which reflects the most significant connection, that is to say, that of the social environment in which his employment relationship unfolds. (18)
正如已经指出的那样，在雇用合同问题上选择的联系是接近的联系，因为《罗马公约》试图确定雇用合同与哪个国家联系最密切。（17） 其目的不是有系统地偏袒雇员，而是通过使他适用法律的强制性规则来保护他，这些法律规则反映了其雇用关系所处的社会环境的最重要联系。(18)

Accordingly, in the event that the parties have expressed a choice as to the law applicable to the employment contract, it will be for the court to ensure that that law does not deprive the employee of the legal protection which would be afforded him by the mandatory rules of the law with which the employment contract is most proximate, the law which could be described as ‘objectively’ applicable.
因此，如果当事方对适用于雇佣合同的法律表示选择，则法院应确保该法律不会剥夺雇员的法律保护，而该法律将根据与雇佣合同关系最密切的法律的强制性规则给予他。 可以被描述为“客观”适用的法律。

Secondly, Article6(2) of the Rome Convention refers to specific connection criteria on the basis of which it is possible, in the absence of choice by the parties, to select the law applicable to the contract.
其次，《罗马公约》第6（2）条提到具体的联系标准，在当事人没有选择的情况下，可以据此选择适用于合同的法律。

Those criteria are either that of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ (Article6(2)(a)), or, in the absence of such a place, that of the seat of ‘the place of business through which he was engaged’ (Article6(2)(b)), and it should be noted in this regard that, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, the first is to be accorded priority in the assessment. (19) Article6(2) also provides that those two connection criteria are to be disregarded 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. (20)
这些标准要么是雇员“惯常从事工作”的国家的标准（第6条第（2）款（a）项），要么是在没有此类地点的情况下，则为“其从事工作的营业地”的所在地（第6条第（2）款（b）项），在这方面应当指出，根据法院的判例法， 首先是在评估中给予优先权。（19） 第6条第（2）款还规定，如果从整体情况来看，雇用合同与另一国的联系更为密切，则应不考虑这两项联系标准，在这种情况下，应适用另一国的法律。(20)

It is thus clear from the wording of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention that the national court, called upon to determine the law applicable to a contract in the absence of a choice expressed by the parties, must, in accordance with the principle of proximity, determine which law is objectively most closely connected with the contract.
因此，从《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款的措辞中可以清楚地看出，在当事人未作出选择的情况下，国家法院被要求确定适用于合同的法律，必须根据接近原则确定哪项法律在客观上与合同联系最密切。

In order to do so, it is for the court to determine the place which, in its view, is the centre of gravity of the contractual relationship by using the criteria set out in Article6(2)(a) (habitual place of performance of the work) and (b) (place of engagement), but not in isolation, since it is clear from the wording of Article6 that the court may disregard the connections referred to in those provisions if it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country.
为此，应由法院使用第6条第（2）款（a）项（工作惯常履行地）和（b）项（聘用地）规定的标准来确定其认为是合同关系重心的地点，但不能孤立地确定，因为从第6条的措辞中可以清楚地看出，在下列情况下，法院可以无视这些规定中提到的联系：从整体情况来看，合同与另一个国家的联系更加密切。

Contrary to what has been observed in relation to Article6(1) of the Rome Convention, the principle of protecting the party deemed to be weaker does not require the court, in applying the criteria under Article6(2) for determining the applicable law, to compare the substantive content of the mandatory rules of the conflicting laws and to apply the law which, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, seems to it most favourable to that party. Respect for the principle offavor laboratorisis ensured through the application of the mandatory rules of the law which, among the laws potentially applicable, is most closely connected with the employment contract, and not necessarily through application of the law most advantageous to the employee. (21)⁹ Indeed, I consider that Article6 of the Rome Convention must simultaneously satisfy two needs: (i) the need for adequate protection of the employee, which, in accordance with the principle of proximity, favours selection of the country with which the employment contract is most closely connected and (ii) the need for legal certainty, which involves designating the criteria on the basis of which it is possible to determine the law applicable to the contract in the absence of choice.
与《罗马公约》第6条第（1）款所观察到的情况相反，保护被认为较弱的一方的原则并不要求法院在适用第6条第（2）款规定的标准确定准据法时，比较相互冲突的法律的强制性规则的实质内容，并适用以下法律： 鉴于本案的具体情况，似乎对该方最有利。通过适用强制性法律规则来确保对有利于实验室原则的尊重，这些法律规则在可能适用的法律中与雇佣合同关系最密切，而不一定通过适用对雇员最有利的法律。（21） ⁹ 事实上，我认为《罗马公约》第6条必须同时满足两个需要：（一）需要对雇员提供充分的保护，根据接近原则，这有利于选择与雇佣合同关系最密切的国家;（二）需要法律确定性，这涉及指定标准，据以确定适用于该合同的法律。没有选择。

To illustrate the situations covered respectively in each of the paragraphs of Article6 of the Rome Convention, I would refer, by way of example, to the case of an employment contract concluded and performed habitually and continuously in Luxembourg between a company established in Sweden and a Luxembourg resident.
为了说明《罗马公约》第6条各款所涵盖的情况，我谨举例说明在瑞典设立的公司与卢森堡居民之间在卢森堡订立并持续履行的雇用合同。

Let us imagine, first of all, that the parties, in accordance with the requirements resulting from Article3 of the Rome Convention, have expressly and with reasonable certainty chosen to apply Swedish law to the employment contract. Notwithstanding that choice, it could be considered that the objectively applicable law— if reference is made to the criteria set out in Article6(2)— is Luxembourg law. Accordingly, if ever a dispute were to arise following, for example, the dismissal of the employee, it would be for the court to determine, through a kind of comparative examination of the legislative elements directly related to the dispute, whether Luxembourg law contains mandatory rules protecting the employee which are more favourable than those recognised in Swedish law, such as those relating to the period of notice or the payment of compensation in the context of a dismissal decision. If that proves to be the case, the court cannot apply the relevant provisions of Swedish law and must instead apply Luxembourg law. Otherwise, it is Swedish law which remains applicable, since the parties to an employment contract may always agree to grant the employee the benefit of the legal provisions more favourable to the employee.
首先，让我们想象一下，当事方根据《罗马公约》第3条的要求，明确地、合理地确定地选择将瑞典法律适用于雇佣合同。尽管有这种选择，但可以认为，客观上适用的法律——如果参照第6条第（2）款规定的标准——是卢森堡法律。因此，如果在解雇雇员之后发生争议，则应由法院通过对与争议直接相关的立法要素进行比较审查，确定卢森堡法律是否包含保护雇员的强制性规则，这些规则比瑞典法律所承认的规则更有利。 例如与通知期或解雇决定中的赔偿支付有关的问题。如果情况确实如此，法院就不能适用瑞典法律的有关规定，而必须适用卢森堡法律。否则，瑞典法律仍然适用，因为雇佣合同的当事方可能总是同意给予雇员更有利于雇员的法律规定的利益。

However, if the parties had not expressly and clearly indicated their choice to apply a given law, it would be the law objectively selected on the basis of the criteria set out in Article6(2)— that is to say, Luxembourg law— which would, in any event, be applicable. In that situation, the employee could not claim the application of the Swedish provisions which might be more favourable to him.
但是，如果当事方没有明确和明确地表明他们选择适用某项法律，那么无论如何，根据第6条第（2）款规定的标准（即卢森堡法律）客观选择的法律将是适用的。在这种情况下，雇员不能要求适用可能对他更有利的瑞典规定。

In short, I would like to point out that, although the rules for determining the law applicable to the contract take into account the specific nature of the employment relationship, those rules must not, in my opinion, result— in all cases and regardless of the nature of the dispute— in the worker being granted the benefit of the national law which appears, from among all the conflicting laws and in the particular circumstances of the case, to be the most favourable to him. Contrary to what might be inferred, at first sight, from the facts giving rise toKoelzschandVoogsgeerd, it is with a clearly expressed concern for ‘adequate’, and not necessarily optimal or ‘favourable’, protection for the employee and guided by considerations which had already been identified by the Court in interpreting the rules of jurisdiction laid down by the Brussels Convention, that the Court held that ‘compliance with the employment protection rules provided for by the law of that country must, so far as is possible, be guaranteed’. (22)
简言之，我想指出的是，虽然确定适用于合同的法律的规则考虑到了雇佣关系的具体性质，但在我看来，这些规则决不能在所有情况下，无论争议的性质如何，都不能使工人获得国家法律的利益。 在所有相互冲突的法律中，在案件的特殊情况下，对他最有利。与乍一看可能从引起KoelzschandVoogsgeerd的事实中推断出来的情况相反，它明确表达了对雇员的“充分”保护，而不一定是最佳或“有利”的保护，并以法院在解释《布鲁塞尔公约》规定的管辖权规则时已经确定的考虑为指导， 法院认为，“必须尽可能保证遵守该国法律规定的就业保护规则”（22）

A different interpretation would, in my opinion, significantly undermine legal certainty and the predictability of the approaches adopted in the context of the mechanism for determining the law applicable to an individual employment contract, in that, depending on the nature of the dispute and the time at which the court is required to give a ruling, the law regarded as the most favourable will not necessarily always be the same. In that respect, it is necessary not to lose sight of the fact that an employment contract may— by dint of the place where it was concluded, the nationality or the place of establishment of the parties which concluded it, or even the fact that it was performed in several places— potentially present links with many countries. (23)¹⁰ Furthermore, the fact that the court is required to carry out a comparative examination of the provisions protecting the employee may prove to be an exercise which is not only particularly tedious, but also profoundly uncertain. Given the abstract nature of the connection criteria referred to in Article6(2) of the Rome Convention, it is difficult to define,a priori, which law is ultimately the most favourable.
在我看来，不同的解释将大大破坏法律的确定性，以及在确定适用于个人雇佣合同的法律的机制方面所采取的方法的可预测性，因为根据争议的性质和法院作出裁决的时间， 被认为是最有利的法律不一定总是相同的。在这方面，必须不忽视这样一个事实，即一项雇用合同可能——由于订立合同的地点、缔结合同的当事人的国籍或成立地，甚至由于合同是在几个地方履行的——可能与许多国家有联系。（23） ¹⁰ 此外，要求法院对保护雇员的条款进行比较审查，这一事实可能被证明是一项不仅特别乏味，而且非常不确定的工作。鉴于《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款所指的联系标准的抽象性质，很难先验地界定哪项法律最终是最有利的。

Moreover, it seems to me that, although the rules laid down in the Rome Convention are intended, in the first place, to prevent the creation, to the detriment of employees, of situations comparable to ‘law shopping’, they must not lead to the creation, in favour of the worker, of an unlimited choice as regards the substantive provisions which he may regard as applicable and thus to the creation of significant uncertainty in determining the applicable law.
此外，在我看来，虽然《罗马公约》所规定的规则首先是为了防止产生与“法律购买”相类似的情况，从而损害雇员的利益，但这些规则决不能导致对工人有利地对他可能认为适用的实质性条款产生无限选择，从而在确定适用条款时产生重大不确定性法律。

It is in the light of those considerations that I will examine the questions referred.
正是根据这些考虑，我将审查所提到的问题。

B–The first question referred
B-提到的第一个问题

By its first question, the national court seeks to obtain clarification as to the importance to be attached to the connection criterion referred to in Article6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention, regard being had to the possibility, offered to the court under the second part of that provision, of selecting, as the law applicable to the employment contract, that of a country which is more closely connected with that contract. It seeks in particular to ascertain the implications of that provision and the conditions for its implementation in the particular situation in which an employee has performed an employment contract habitually, for a lengthy period and without interruption, in a single country.
通过第一个问题，国家法院试图澄清对《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款（a）项所述的联系标准的重视程度，考虑到根据该条款第二部分向法院提出的选择作为适用于雇用合同的法律的可能性。 与该合同联系更密切的国家。它特别力求确定该条款的影响以及在雇员在一个国家习惯性地、长期和不间断地履行雇用合同的特定情况下执行该条款的条件。

Implications of the second part of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention
《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款第二部分的影响

The Court is, in the present case, required to take part in a discussion (24) ¹¹of long standing both in the legal literature and within some national courts as to the relationship between the connection criteria referred to in the first part of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention and the escape clause set out in the second part of that provision.
在本案中，法院必须参加法律文献和一些国家法院中长期存在的关于《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款第一部分所述的联系标准与该条款第二部分规定的免责条款之间关系的讨论（24 ¹¹ ）。

In essence, there are two conflicting views. According to the first, the fundamental relationship between those two parts is that of the rule and the exception, which means that the search for possible closer connections with another country can occur only in exceptional circumstances, that is to say, in the event that the presumptions result in the selection of a law which is manifestly inappropriate to the contract. According to the second view, there is no hierarchical relationship between the two parts and the court has a measure of discretion in determining the law most closely connected with the relevant contract.
从本质上讲，存在两种相互矛盾的观点。第一种说法认为，这两部分之间的基本关系是规则和例外的关系，这意味着只有在例外情况下，即在推定导致选择明显不适合合同的法律的情况下，才能寻求与另一国的可能更密切的联系。根据第二种观点，这两部分之间没有等级关系，法院在确定与有关合同最密切相关的法律方面有一定程度的自由裁量权。

To ensure a proper understanding of the points at issue and to clarify my remarks, I would like to put forward a specific example, which is similar to the case now before the referring court. I refer to the situation of a contract concluded in France between a French company and a woman of French nationality, a contract which, in all likelihood, it was presupposed would be performed in France, but which, in the context of a very long posting (over 10 years), was essentially and continuously performed in Saudi Arabia. If the idea is accepted that the ‘exception’ clause set out in the second part of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention can apply only in an entirely secondary and exceptional manner, that is to say, where the connection to the place of performance of the employment contract is totally inappropriate, which is clearly not the case where it is performed on a long-term basis in a single place, then it would be appropriate without hesitation to apply Saudi law. However, if the idea is accepted that, even if the place of performance of the contract is particularly easy to determine, the court is entitled to check whether that contract may be more closely connected with another country, the answer is far less clear, since, although it is habitually performed in Saudi Arabia, many elements relating to it suggest that French law should be selected.
为了确保正确理解争议点并澄清我的言论，我想举一个具体的例子，它与现在提交法院的案件类似。我指的是一家法国公司与一名法国籍妇女在法国签订的合同的情况，该合同极有可能在法国履行，但在很长的任期（超过10年）的情况下，该合同基本上是在沙特阿拉伯持续履行的。如果接受这样一种想法，即《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款第二部分所载的“例外”条款只能以完全次要和例外的方式适用，也就是说，在与雇佣合同履行地的联系完全不合适的情况下，这显然不是在一个地方长期履行的情况， 那么毫不犹豫地适用沙特法律是合适的。但是，如果接受这样一种想法，即即使合同的履行地点特别容易确定，法院也有权检查该合同是否可能与另一个国家有更密切的联系，那么答案就不那么明确了，因为尽管合同在沙特阿拉伯惯常履行，但与此相关的许多因素表明，应选择法国法律。

I am of the opinion that it is the second interpretation which must prevail, for the reasons that follow.
我认为，第二种解释必须占上风，原因如下。

First, the fact that it is necessary, in accordance with the guidance set out inKoelzschandVoogsgeerd, to construe broadly the rule, laid down in Article6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention, that, in the absence of a choice expressed by the parties, it is the law of the place of performance of the contract which applies does not imply as a corollary that the safeguard clause laid down in the second part of Article6(2) may be applied only in exceptional circumstances, or even that, where the habitual place of performance of the work is not in any doubt, it may not be applied at all.
首先，根据KoelzschandVoogsgeerd案中提出的指导意见，有必要对《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款（a）项中规定的规则作广义解释，即在当事人未作出选择的情况下，适用合同履行地的法律这一事实并不意味着第6条第（2）款第二部分规定的保障条款可以作为必然结果只有在特殊情况下才适用，甚至在作品的惯常表演地点没有任何疑问的情况下，它可能根本不适用。

I would point out in that regard that the Court confined itself inKoelzschto holding that, in so far as the objective of Article6 of the Rome Convention is to guarantee adequate protection for the employee, that provision must be understood as guaranteeing the applicability of the law of the State in which the employee engages in his working activities rather than that of the State in which the employer is established. (25) The Court inferred from this that the criterion of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’, set out in Article6(2)(a), must be broadly construed, while the criterion of ‘the place of business through which [the employee] was engaged’, set out in Article6(2)(b), ought to apply in cases where the court dealing with the case is not in a position to determine the country in which the work is habitually carried out. (26)
在这方面，我要指出的是，法院在Koelzschto案中认为，就《罗马公约》第6条的目标是保证对雇员的充分保护而言，该条款必须被理解为保证雇员从事其工作活动的国家的法律的适用性，而不是雇主所在国的法律的适用性。（25） 法院据此推断，第6条第（2）款（a）项所规定的雇员“惯常从事工作”的国家的标准必须作广义解释，而第6条第（2）款（b）项所规定的“[雇员]受雇于其营业地”的标准应适用于处理该案件的法院无法确定该雇员在哪个国家从事工作。工作是习惯性的。(26)

A similar approach seems to me to have been adopted inVoogsgeerd, in which the Court pointed out that the criterion of the place where the employee habitually carries out his work must be applied first. (27)
在我看来，在Voogsgeerd案中也采用了类似的做法，其中法院指出，必须首先适用雇员惯常开展工作的地点的标准。(27)

I note, moreover, that the cases which gave rise to those judgments specifically related to situations in which the parties had opted for the application of the law of a given country (Luxembourg law), but where the objectively applicable law, under Article6(2) of the Rome Convention, contained mandatory provisions more protective of employees than those contained in the law originally chosen. In the first case, it was argued that the provisions applicable to the dismissal of members of the personnel committee of which MrKoelzsch was a member were more protective in Germany. In the second case, the action for damages brought by MrVoogsgeerd for the allegedly wrongful termination of a seaman’s contract of employment between him and his former employer was time-barred under Luxembourg law after three months, a situation which would be excluded and even contrary to the law applicable in Belgium.
此外，我注意到，导致这些判决的案件具体涉及当事方选择适用某一国家法律（卢森堡法律）的情况，但根据《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款，客观适用的法律载有比原先选择的法律中所载的更保护雇员的强制性规定。在第一起案件中，有人争辩说，适用于解雇Koelzsch先生所属的人事委员会成员的规定在德国更具保护性。在第二起案件中，Voogsgeerd先生因据称不当终止一名海员与其前雇主之间的雇用合同而提起的损害赔偿诉讼在三个月后就已超过时效，这种情况将被排除在外，甚至违反比利时适用的法律。

In my view, although it follows clearly from the case-law devolving fromKoelzschandVoogsgeerdthat the connection criterion referred to in Article6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention— that is to say, that of the habitual place of performance of the employment contract— must, in so far as is possible, be preferred to that of the place of engagement referred to in Article6(2)(b), (28)¹² it does not follow that use of the clause laid down in the second part of Article6(2) must also be marginalised, to the effect that the court could have recourse to it only on an entirely exceptional basis.
我认为，尽管从KoelzschandVoogsgeerd案的判例法中可以清楚地看出，《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款（a）项所指的联系标准，即雇用合同的惯常履行地标准，必须尽可能优先于第6条第（2）款（b）项所指的聘用地标准，（28） ¹² 这并不意味着对第6条第（2）款第二部分规定的条款的使用也必须被边缘化，以至于法院只能在完全例外的基础上援引该条款。

I am of the view that the order of precedence recognised by the Court in relation to the criteria to be taken into account in determining the applicable law concerns only the connection criteria referred to in Article6(2)(a) and (b) of the Rome Convention, that is to say, that of the place of performance and that of the place of engagement, and not the possibility open to the court of applying the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected, under the second part of Article6(2).
我认为，法院在确定适用法律时所考虑的标准方面所承认的优先顺序只涉及《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款（a）项和（b）项所述的联系标准，即履约地和约定地的联系标准。 根据第6条第（2）款第二部分，法院不可能适用与合同关系最密切的国家的法律。

Accordingly, although, in order to guarantee a certain level of predictability, it is for the court to determine the law applicable to the contract on the basis of the connection criteria referred to in the first part of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention and, in particular, the criterion of the place of performance of the work, referred to in Article6(2)(a), I consider that the court may always, in accordance with the clear wording of the second part of Article6(2), consider it necessary to disregard that law where there are closer connections with another country. That latter provision must, in my view, be conceived as an open conflict rule capable of supplanting both the law of the place where the work is habitually carried out and the law of the place of engagement. (29) ¹³I would also like to emphasise that the Court specifically pointed out, in paragraph51 ofVoogsgeerd, that the referring court in that case was free to take other factors pertaining to the employment relationship into account if it appeared that the factors relating to the two connection criteria set out in Article6(2)(a) and (b)— relating respectively to the place where the work is carried out and the place of business of the undertaking which employs the worker— suggest that the contract is more closely connected with a State other than the States indicated by those criteria.
因此，尽管为了保证一定程度的可预测性，法院应根据《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款第一部分所述的联系标准，特别是作品的履行地标准，确定适用于合同的法律， 在第6条第（2）款（a）项中，我认为，根据第6条第（2）款第二部分的明确措辞，法院始终可以认为在与另一国有更密切联系的情况下，有必要无视该法律。在我看来，后一项规定必须被理解为一种公开的冲突规则，能够取代惯常进行工作地的法律和从事地的法律。（29） ¹³ 我还想强调，法院在Voogsgeerd第51段中特别指出，如果与第6（2）（a）和（b）条中规定的两个联系标准有关的因素分别与工作地点和企业营业地点有关，则该案的转介法院可以自由考虑与雇佣关系有关的其他因素雇用工人——表明合同与这些标准所指的国家以外的国家有更密切的联系。

Secondly, that interpretation seems to me consistent with the approach adopted by the Court in the case which gave rise to the judgment inICF, a case which was concerned, admittedly, with the ‘exception’ clause of general application— worded in the same terms as that at issue in the case currently under consideration— laid down in Article4(5) of the Rome Convention, but which, for reasons which I will set out below, and notwithstanding the specific rules for determining the law applicable to individual employment contracts, has some relevance.
其次，在我看来，这种解释似乎与法院在导致ICF案判决的案件中采取的做法是一致的，该案诚然涉及《罗马公约》第4条第（5）款规定的普遍适用的“例外”条款——其措辞与目前正在审议的案件中争议的措辞相同。 但是，由于我将在下面阐述的原因，尽管有确定适用于个人雇佣合同的法律的具体规则，但仍有一定的相关性。

I would point out that, among the questions raised by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in that case, the fifth question specifically sought to obtain clarification as to the importance to be attributed to the connection criteria referred to in Article4(2) to (4) of the Rome Convention, and, accordingly, as to the possibility of disregarding those presumptions under the second sentence of Article4(5) ‘if it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country’. (30)
我要指出的是，在荷兰法院在该案中提出的问题中，第五个问题特别试图澄清《罗马公约》第4条第（2）款至第（4）款所述的联系标准的重要性，并据此澄清根据第4条第（5）款第二句不予理会这些推定的可能性，“如果从整体情况来看，似乎合同与另一个国家的联系更紧密。(30)

The referring court accordingly asked the Court whether the exception in the second sentence of Article4(5) of the Rome Convention had to be interpreted in such a way that the presumptions in Article4(2) to (4) are to be disregarded only if it is evident from the circumstances as a whole that the criteria referred to therein do not have any genuine connecting value, or whether the court may also disregard them if it is clear from those circumstances that there is a stronger connection with some other country. In that context and as in the case currently under consideration, two possibilities were available. The first, which restricts the use of Article4(5) of the Rome Convention to exceptional circumstances, allows the general presumptions to be disregarded only where they have no genuine connecting value in relation to the contract at issue. The second possibility, which confers far greater flexibility on the court, allows the latter to disregard the result arrived at on the basis of the presumptions set out in Article4(2) to (4) simply by finding that the contract at issue is more closely connected with another country. (31)
因此，主审法院询问法院，是否必须对《罗马公约》第4条第（5）款第二句中的例外情况进行解释，即只有在从整个情况来看，其中提到的标准不具有任何真正的联系价值时，才能不考虑第4条第（2）款至第（4）款中的推定。 或者，如果从这些情况中可以清楚地看出与其他国家有更强的联系，法院是否也可以无视这些建议。在这种情况下，与目前正在审议的情况一样，有两种可能性。第一种规定将《罗马公约》第4（5）条的使用限制在例外情况下，只允许在一般推定与所涉合同没有真正联系价值的情况下才不予考虑。第二种可能性赋予法院更大的灵活性，允许法院仅仅通过认定有争议的合同与另一个国家有更密切的联系而无视根据第4条第（2）款至第（4）款规定的推定得出的结果。(31)

Referring to the Giuliano Lagarde Report and on the view that it is ultimately appropriate to reconcile the requirements of foreseeability of the law, hence of legal certainty in contractual relationships, with the need to allow a certain flexibility in determining the law, the Court, after its examination, reached the conclusion that Article4(5) of the Rome Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is clear from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with a country other than that determined on the basis of one of the criteria referred to in Article4(2) to (4), it is for the court to disregard those criteria and apply the law of the country with which that contract is most closely connected. According to the Court, the court retains that power notwithstanding its duty always to determine the applicable law on the basis of the presumptions set out in Article4(2) to (4) of the Rome Convention, which satisfy the general requirement of foreseeability of the law, hence of legal certainty in contractual relationships. (32)
法院援引《朱利亚诺·拉加德报告书》并认为，最终应将法律的可预见性要求（即合同关系中的法律确定性）与在确定法律时允许一定灵活性的要求相协调，法院在审查后得出结论，认为《罗马公约》第4条第（5）款必须解释为： 如果从整体情况中可以清楚地看出，合同与根据第4条第（2）款至第（4）款所述标准之一确定的国家以外的国家的联系更为密切，则法院应无视这些标准，适用与该合同联系最密切的国家的法律。法院认为，尽管法院有义务始终根据《罗马公约》第4条第（2）款至第（4）款规定的推定确定适用法律，但法院仍保留这一权力，这些推定满足了法律可预见性的一般要求，因此满足了合同关系中的法律确定性。(32)

Although the concern for the protection of the employee led the draftsmen of the Rome Convention to lay down, in relation to individual employment contracts, conflict-of-law rules derogating from the general rules laid down in Articles3 and 4 of that convention, that concern is expressed, above all— as I stated above— not by preferential connections in Article6(2), but by the application of the law which has the closest relationship with the employment contract. As was pointed out with regard to Article4 of the Rome Convention, the rules referred to in Article6 are therefore also based on the idea of proximity.
尽管《罗马公约》的起草者出于对雇员保护的关切，就个人雇佣合同规定了减损该公约第3条和第4条所规定的一般规则的法律冲突规则，但正如我上文所述，这种关切首先不是通过第6条第（2）款中的优惠关系来表达的。 而是通过适用与劳动合同关系最密切的法律。正如关于《罗马公约》第4条所指出的，因此，第6条所指的规则也是以接近的概念为基础的。

Conditions for the implementation of the second part of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention
《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款第二部分的实施条件

An initial question remains as to the circumstances in which the court may disregard the law determined on the basis of the criterion of the place of performance of the employment contract. That question arises because the Court, while opting for a more nuanced approach, stated inICFthat it had to be ‘clear’ from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with a country other than that determined on the basis of one of the criteria set out in Article4(2) to (4) of the Rome Convention. (33) Should that condition be transposed to application of the second part of Article6 of the Rome Convention? I do not think so, for two reasons.
第一个问题是，在什么情况下，法院可以无视根据雇用合同履行地标准确定的法律。之所以出现这个问题，是因为法院在选择更细致入微的方法的同时，在ICF中指出，从整体情况来看，必须“清楚”地表明，合同与根据《罗马公约》第4条第（2）款至第（4）款规定的标准之一确定的国家以外的国家有更密切的联系。（33） 是否应将这一条件转为适用《罗马公约》第6条第二款？我不这么认为，原因有二。

First, I would note that, although the general exception clause now set out in Article4(3) of the Rome I Regulation expressly retains the adverb ‘manifestly’ in its wording, (34)¹⁴ that is not the case with the provision specifically covering employment contracts and set out in Article8(4) of that regulation. (35)¹⁵ That the intention was to restrict recourse to the general exception under Article4 of the Rome Convention seems to me certain, particularly given that, at one point— as is clear from the travaux préparatoires— consideration was given to removing it. (36) Although, admittedly, the Rome I Regulation is not applicableratione temporisto the case currently under consideration, I nonetheless consider that, in line with the considerations of the Court inKoelzsch, (37) that regulation constitutes additional evidence to support the interpretation given to the Rome Convention.
首先，我要指出的是，虽然《罗马条例I》第4（3）条所载的一般例外条款在其措辞中明确保留了副词“明显”，（34） ¹⁴ 但该条例第8（4）条中专门涵盖雇佣合同的条文并非如此。（35） ¹⁵ 在我看来，其意图是限制诉诸《罗马公约》第4条规定的一般例外，这是肯定的，特别是考虑到，正如准备工作文件所表明的那样，曾一度考虑过取消这一例外。（36） 诚然，《罗马条例一》在属时上不适用于目前正在审议的案件，但我仍然认为，根据法院在Koelzsch案中的考虑，（37）该条例构成了支持对《罗马公约》的解释的额外证据。

Secondly, the condition that the existence of closer ties must be ‘clear’ from the circumstances is explained, in my view, by the fact that, unlike the rules laid down in Article6 of the Rome Convention, which are concomitantly inspired by the idea of proximity and that of protecting the employee, Article4 lays down a totally neutral conflict-of-law rule which pursues, primarily and before any other consideration, an objective of predictability and legal certainty. (38)
其次，在我看来，存在更密切联系的条件必须从具体情况中“清楚”，可以解释为，与《罗马公约》第6条所规定的规则不同，后者同时受到接近和保护雇员的启发，第4条规定了一项完全中立的法律冲突规则，该规则追求： 首先，在任何其他考虑因素之前，目标是可预测性和法律确定性。(38)

To my mind, it follows that, even supposing it to be established that the employment contract has been performed in a lasting, continuous and uninterrupted manner in a single country, which means, in principle, that it is the law of that country which must be applied, the provision made in the second part of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention does not lose its raison d’être: if a contract is obviously located in a State which is not that of the habitual performance of the work, it is still possible to bring that provision into operation.
在我看来，即使假设确定雇佣合同在一个国家以持久、连续和不间断的方式履行，这意味着原则上必须适用该国的法律，《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款第二部分的规定并没有失去其存在的理由： 如果合同显然位于非惯常履行工作的国家，则仍有可能使该条款生效。

The point here is not that the significant connection criterion generally constituted (39)¹⁶ by the habitual place of performance of the work is marginalised, but rather that the national court is free to disregard that criterion in the event that, in the circumstances of the case, it appears that the centre of gravity of the employment relationship is not located in the country in which the work is carried out. The second part of Article6(2) of the Rome Convention must be viewed as a safeguard mechanism. It must not obscure the connections referred to in the first part of Article6(2), especially the strong connection constituted by the law of the place of work, thereby at the same time making the approaches ultimately adopted wholly unpredictable.
这里的重点不在于通常由工作的惯常履行地点构成的重要联系标准（39） ¹⁶ 被边缘化，而是如果根据本案的情况，雇用关系的重心似乎不在从事工作的国家，国家法院可以自由地无视这一标准。《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款第二部分必须被视为一种保障机制。它不得掩盖第6条第（2）款第一部分所指的联系，特别是工作地法律所构成的牢固联系，从而使最终采用的方法完全不可预测。

In the present case, the referring court proceeded, it seems, on the assumption that all the circumstances, apart from the place of performance of the work carried out without interruption by MrsBoedeker for over 11 years in performance of the contract which she had entered into with Schlecker, weigh in favour of the existence of closer connections with Germany. That court points out, in particular, that the employer is a legal person governed by German law; that the worker resided, when she was an employee, in Germany; that the costs of the journey between the worker’s residence and the place of work were reimbursed by the employer; that prior to the introduction of the euro, the salary was paid in German marks; that the pension plan covering the employee was operated by a German organisation; that the social contributions were paid in Germany and; that the employment contract, drawn up in German, referred to binding provisions of German law.
在本案中，移交法院的审理似乎是假设，除了Boedeker夫人为履行她与Schlecker签订的合同而不间断地工作了11年之外，所有情况都有利于与德国存在更密切的联系。该法院特别指出，雇主是受德国法律管辖的法人;该工人在担任雇员时居住在德国;从工人住所到工作地点的路费由雇主报销;在引入欧元之前，工资是以德国马克支付的;涵盖雇员的养老金计划由德国组织运营;社会会费是在德国支付的;用德语起草的雇佣合同提到了德国法律的约束性条款。

Accordingly, as is clear from the wording of the first question, the referring court did not seek to obtain further information on the evidence which might make it possible to disregard the presumption arising under Article6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention.
因此，从第一个问题的措辞中可以清楚地看出，提交法院并未寻求获得关于证据的进一步资料，从而有可能无视《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款（a）项下的推定。

Moreover, I am well aware that it is solely for the national court to assess all the factors pertaining to the employment contract and to single out one or more as being, in its view, the most significant.
此外，我很清楚，只有国家法院才能评估与雇佣合同有关的所有因素，并挑出一个或多个它认为最重要的因素。

However, it seems appropriate, for the purpose of giving a helpful answer to the referring court, to provide some guidance as to the parameters that the national courts may take into account with a view to determining the country with which the contract is most closely connected.
然而，为了给提交法院一个有益的答复，似乎应该就国家法院在确定合同与哪个国家联系最密切时可能考虑的参数提供一些指导。

In that regard, I believe that the court called upon to rule in a particular case cannot automatically conclude that the law of the country of performance of the contract, selected pursuant to Article6(2)(a) of the Rome Convention, must be disregarded solely because, by dint of their number, the other relevant circumstances which have been brought to its knowledge would result in the selection of another country, but must take into account the weight of each of those circumstances in determining the centre of gravity of the employment relationship.
在这方面，我认为，被要求在某一特定案件中作出裁决的法院不能自动得出结论，即根据《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款（a）项所选择的合同履行国的法律必须被忽视，仅仅因为其所了解的其他相关情况的数量将导致选择另一个国家。 但在确定雇佣关系的重心时，必须考虑到这些情况中的每一种的权重。

Indeed, among all the objective factors which fall to be assessed by the court, some must have less importance attributed to them than others for the purposes of concluding whether there are closer connections.
事实上，在法院评估的所有客观因素中，为了断定是否存在更密切的联系，有些因素的重要性必须低于其他因素。

Without laying any claim to exhaustiveness, I regard as significant factors suggestive of connection with a particular country, first and foremost, the fact that the employee pays taxes and contributions there, relating to the income from his activity and the fact that he is covered by the social security scheme there and the various pension, sickness insurance and invalidity schemes. As the Netherlands Government stated, regardless of the particular rules applicable to certain categories of employee, the prevailing principle in matters relating to affiliation to a social security scheme is, save in the specific case of the posting of the employee, that oflex loci laboris, (40)¹⁷ which implies that an employee is subject to the social security scheme of the State in which he habitually works. By avoiding that rule, as the relevant basic legislation permits, (41)¹⁸ the parties concerned sought, it seems to me, to shift the centre of gravity of their relationship to another country. However, always with a view to providing adequate protection to the party regarded as economically and socially weaker, it is appropriate to examine whether the connection to the social protection schemes was made by mutual agreement of the parties or whether it was imposed on the employee.
在不要求详尽无遗的情况下，我认为与特定国家有联系的重要因素，首先是雇员在那里纳税和缴款，这与他的活动收入有关，以及他受到那里的社会保障计划以及各种养老金、疾病保险和伤残计划的保障。正如荷兰政府所指出的，无论适用于某些类别的雇员的具体规则是什么，在与加入社会保障计划有关的事项上，普遍的原则是，除雇员被派驻的具体情况外，oflex loci laboris（40） ¹⁷ 意味着雇员受其惯常工作所在国的社会保障计划的约束。在我看来，在有关基本立法允许的情况下，通过规避这一规则（41）， ¹⁸ 有关各方试图将其关系的重心转移到另一个国家。然而，为了向被认为在经济和社会上较弱的一方提供充分的保护，应该审查与社会保护计划的联系是由双方共同协议建立的，还是强加给雇员的。

Similarly, I am inclined to consider that some importance must be attached to the parameters taken into account for the purposes of determining the salary and working conditions. More specifically, the court could examine which agreement or national scale has been used in determining the salary and other working conditions. That examination could, in my view, be made by reference to the information contained in the employment contract and any documents appended or to which it expressly refers.
同样，我倾向于认为，在确定工资和工作条件时，必须对所考虑的参数给予一定的重视。更具体地说，法院可以审查在确定工资和其他工作条件时使用了哪种协议或国家标准。在我看来，这种审查可以参照雇佣合同所载的信息以及所附或明确提及的任何文件进行。

By contrast, the fact that the parties to the contract concluded it in a particular country, that they are of a particular nationality or that they chose to reside in a particular country constitute parameters of lesser importance. Similarly, decisive importance should not be attached to the language in which the employment contract was drawn up or the fact that it refers to a particular currency, although they may be relevant factors.
与此相反，合同当事人在某一特定国家订立合同、他们属于某一特定国籍或他们选择在某一特定国家居住这一事实构成不太重要的参数。同样，不应决定性地重视起草雇用合同的措辞或它提及特定货币的事实，尽管它们可能是相关因素。

In the light of all those considerations, I propose that the answer to the first question should be that Article6(2) of the Rome Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, even in the event that an employee carries out the work in performance of the contract not only habitually but also for a lengthy period and without interruption in the same country, the national court may, under the second part of that provision, disregard the law applicable in that country where it is clear from the circumstances as a whole that there is a closer connection between that contract and another country.
鉴于所有这些考虑，我建议对第一个问题的回答应该是，《罗马公约》第6条第（2）款必须解释为，即使雇员不仅习惯性地而且在同一国家长期不间断地履行合同而从事工作， 根据该条款的第二部分，如果从整个情况中可以清楚地看出该合同与另一国家之间有更密切的联系，则国家法院可以无视该国适用的法律。

C–The second question referred
C-提到的第二个问题

By its second question, the referring court asks whether an affirmative answer to the first question requires that the parties to the employment contract must have intended or have been aware— on the date of concluding the contract or, at least, of commencing its performance— that the work would be carried out in the same country over a long period and without interruption.
在第二个问题中，提交法院询问，对第一个问题的肯定回答是否要求雇用合同的当事方在订立合同之日或至少在开始履行合同之日必须打算或已经知道，工作将在同一国家长期不间断地进行。

Since a negative answer has been proposed for the first question, it could be considered that it is no longer necessary to answer the second. It is clear that the second question seeks to ascertain whether, in the event that there is no doubt as to the place of performance of the contract, the ‘exception clause’ set out in the second part of Article6 of the Rome Convention can be disregarded from the outset in the case under consideration only if the parties were aware of the actual place and the long duration of the employment contract.
既然对第一个问题提出了否定的答案，可以认为不再需要回答第二个问题。显然，第二个问题旨在确定，在合同的履行地点没有疑问的情况下，只有在当事方知道雇用合同的实际地点和期限的情况下，《罗马公约》第6条第二部分规定的“例外条款”是否可以从一开始就被忽略。

However, in so far as that question potentially and more broadly relates to the relevance of the intention or awareness of the parties— when concluding the employment contract or, at the very least, on the date on which performance of the contract started— for the purposes of determining the law applicable to the employment contract under the Rome Convention, I believe that it may be of some assistance to consider that question.
然而，就该问题可能和更广泛地涉及当事方的意图或意识的相关性而言——在订立雇佣合同时，或至少在合同开始履行之日——为确定《罗马公约》规定的雇用合同适用的法律的目的， 我认为，考虑这个问题可能会有所帮助。

In that regard, I would like to refer briefly to the following considerations.
在这方面，我想简要地谈谈以下几点考虑。

It seems to me quite obvious that it is difficult to take into account the awareness or intention of the parties when ascertaining whether they have, in one way or another, indicated their choice as to the application of a particular law. Indeed, Article3 of the Rome Convention, to which Article6(1) thereof expressly refers, requires that ‘[t]he choice must be expressed or demonstrated with reasonable certainty by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case’. Those conditions are clearly not satisfied by a mere intention or common will on the part of the parties, since this may at most be regarded as the expression of an implied choice, which does not meet the requirements under the relevant provisions.
在我看来，很明显，在确定当事方是否以某种方式表明了他们对适用某项法律的选择时，很难考虑到当事方的意识或意图。事实上，《罗马公约》第6条第（1）款明确提及的《罗马公约》第3条要求“必须根据合同条款或案件情况合理确定地表达或证明选择”。这些条件显然不是由当事方的意图或共同意志来满足的，因为这至多可以被视为一种默示选择的表达，不符合有关规定的要求。

On the other hand, I am inclined to conclude that specific information which has been brought to the attention of the parties concerning the place of performance of the contract may be of some assistance. Consequently, the intention or awareness of the parties at the time of concluding the contract— or, possibly, on the date on which performance commenced— may, where based on specific and objective evidence, be a relevant indicator for the purposes of identifying the country with which the employment contract is most closely connected.
另一方面，我倾向于得出结论，提请当事方注意的有关合同履行地点的具体资料可能会有所帮助。因此，在根据具体和客观证据的情况下，当事方在订立合同时——或可能在履行合同开始之日——的意图或意识可以作为确定与雇佣合同关系最密切的国家的相关指标。

The court may, therefore, in its consideration of all the circumstances which lead it to determine with which country the contract is most closely connected, take into account information concerning its performance which was actually brought to the attention of the parties.
因此，法院在考虑导致其确定合同与哪个国家联系最密切的所有情况时，可以考虑实际提请当事人注意的有关合同履行的资料。

Accordingly, I propose that the answer to the second question should be that it is possible to take into account, for the purposes of applying the law of the country of the place in which the work is habitually carried out, specific evidence showing that, when concluding the contract of employment, or at least at the commencement of the work, the employer and the employee intended— or were at least aware of the fact— that the work would be carried out over a long period and without interruption in the same country.
因此，我建议对第二个问题的回答应该是，为了适用惯常进行工作所在国的法律，可以考虑具体证据，表明在订立雇佣合同时，或至少在工作开始时， 雇主和雇员打算——或至少知道这一事实——工作将在同一个国家进行很长一段时间，而不会中断。

VI–Conclusion

Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the questions referred by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden be answered as follows:
考虑到上述所有考虑，我建议对荷兰议会提出的问题作如下回答：

(1)

Article6(2) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19June 1980 must be interpreted as meaning that, even where an employee carries out the work in performance of the contract not only habitually but also for a lengthy period and without interruption in the same country, the national court may, under the second part of that provision, disregard the law applicable in that country where it is clear from the circumstances as a whole that there is a closer connection between that contract and another country.
1980年6月19日在罗马开放供签署的合同义务适用法律的公约第6条第（2）款必须解释为，即使雇员不仅在同一国家惯常地而且长期且不间断地履行合同，国家法院也可以： 根据该条文的第二部分，如果从整个情况来看，该合同与另一国家之间有更密切的联系，则无视该国适用的法律。

(2)

It is possible to take into account, for the purposes of applying the law of the country where the work is habitually carried out, specific evidence showing that, when concluding the contract of employment, or at least at the commencement of the work, the employer and the employee intended— or were at least aware of the fact— that the work would be carried out over a long period and without interruption in the same country.
为了适用惯常从事工作的国家的法律，可以考虑具体证据表明，在订立雇用合同时，或至少在工作开始时，雇主和雇员打算——或至少知道这一事实——工作将在同一国家长期不间断地进行。

2–

Original language: French.

3–

OJ 1980 L266, p.1.

4–

Pursuant to Article1 of the First Protocol on the interpretation of the 1980 Convention by the Court of Justice (OJ 1998 C27, p.47), which entered into force on 1August 2004, the Court has jurisdiction to rule on requests for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the provisions of that convention. Furthermore, under Article2(a) of that protocol, courts such as the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden may request the Court to give a preliminary ruling on a question raised in a case pending before it and concerning the interpretation of such provisions. With regard to the temporal applicability of the Rome Convention, it is sufficient to point out that Regulation (EC) No593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L177, p.6) (‘the Rome I Regulation’), which replaced the Rome Convention, applies only to contracts concluded after 17December 2009 (see Article28 of that regulation). However, it is clear from the order for reference that the employment contract at issue in the dispute before the referring court was concluded well before that date, that is to say, on 30November 1994.
根据2004年8月1日生效的关于法院解释1980年《公约》的第一议定书第1条（OJ 1998 C27，第47页），法院有权就关于解释该公约条款的初步裁决的请求作出裁决。此外，根据该议定书第2条（a）款，荷兰法院等法院可要求法院就待审案件中提出的问题以及对这些条款的解释作出初步裁决。关于《罗马公约》的时间适用性，只需指出，欧洲议会和理事会2008年6月17日关于合同义务适用法律的第593/2008号条例（《罗马一》）（OJ 2008 L177，第6页）（“《罗马一条例》”）取代了《罗马公约》，仅适用于2009年12月17日之后签订的合同（见该条例第28条）。然而，从供参考的命令中可以清楚地看出，在提交法院审理的争议中，有争议的雇佣合同是在该日期之前订立的，即1994年11月30日。

5–

Case C29/10 [2011] ECR I1595.

6–

Case C384/10 [2011] ECR I13275.

7–

Case C133/08 [2009] ECR I9687.

8–

At this stage, I consider it preferable to refer to the ‘escape clause’— a concept to be found in a number of contributions to the legal literature— since, in my view, to call it the ‘exception clause’ would beg the question as to whether the operation of that clause is triggered only by exceptional circumstances.
在现阶段，我认为最好提及“免责条款”——这一概念在一些法律文献的文稿中都有——因为在我看来，称其为“例外条款”会回避一个问题，即该条款的实施是否仅由例外情况触发。

9–

This remains true, despite the entry into force of the Rome I Regulation. Not only does that regulation apply only to contracts concluded after 17December 2009, but the rules thereunder governing conflict of laws in relation to individual employment contracts (see Article8) are, in essence, the same. In that regard, the Court has established a connection between the two measures (seeKoelzsch, paragraph46).
尽管《罗马条例I》已经生效，但情况仍然如此。该条例不仅仅适用于2009年12月17日之后签订的合同，而且该条例中关于个人雇佣合同法律冲突的规则（见第8条）实质上是相同的。在这方面，法院确定了这两项措施之间的联系（见Koelzsch，第46段）。

10–

For a summary of the objectives pursued by the Rome Convention, see in particularICF, paragraphs22 and 23.
关于《罗马公约》所追求的目标的摘要，特别见ICF第22和23段。

11–

Accordingly, it is stated in the Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, by Professor Mario Giuliano, University of Milan, and Professor Paul Lagarde, University of Paris I (OJ 1980 C282, p.1, ‘the Giuliano Lagarde Report’; see, in particular, pp.25 and 26) that it was a question of ‘finding a more appropriate arrangement for matters in which the interests of one of the contracting parties are not the same as those of the other, and at the same time to secure thereby more adequate protection for the party who from the socio-economic point of view is regarded as the weaker in the contractual relationship’.
因此，米兰大学的Mario Giuliano教授和巴黎第一大学的Paul Lagarde教授在《关于合同义务适用法律的公约报告》中指出（OJ 1980 C282，第1页，“朱利亚诺·拉加德报告”;特别见第25和26页），这是一个“为缔约一方的利益与缔约方的利益不同而作出更适当安排”的问题另一方面，同时确保从社会经济角度来看，在合同关系中被视为较弱的一方得到更充分的保护。

12–

The idea that it is appropriate to protect the weaker party by means of rules more favourable to his interests than the general rules is to be found more broadly in the provisions of private international law as a whole and is reflected in particular in the context of the interpretation of the Convention of 27September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L304, p.36), as amended by the Convention of 29November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden (OJ 1997 C15, p.1), (‘the Brussels Convention’) (see, in particular, Case 133/81IvenelECR 1891, paragraph14; Case C125/92Mulox IBC[1993] ECR I4075, paragraph18; Case C383/95Rutten[1997] ECR I57, paragraph22; Case C37/00Weber[2002] ECR I2013, paragraph40; Case C437/00Pugliese[2003] ECR I3573, paragraph18) and Council Regulation (EC) No44/2001 of 22December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L12, p.1) (see, in particular, Case C154/11Mahamdia[2012] ECR, paragraphs44 and 46).
通过比一般规则更有利于弱势一方利益的规则来保护弱势一方是适当的这一想法，在整个国际私法的条款中得到了更广泛的体现，尤其反映在对1968年9月27日《关于民商事事项管辖权和判决的执行的公约》的解释中（OJ 1978 L304， 第36页），经1996年11月29日《奥地利共和国、芬兰共和国和瑞典王国加入公约》（OJ 1997 C15，第1页）修正（“《布鲁塞尔公约》”）（具体见133/81IvenelECR 1891，第14段;判例C125/92Mulox IBC[1993] ECR I4075，第18段;判例C383/95Rutten[1997] ECR I57，第22段;判例 C37/00Weber[2002] ECR I2013，第40段;C437/00Pugliese[2003] ECR I3573，第18段）和2000年12月22日理事会条例（EC）第44/2001号，关于民事和商事案件的管辖权和判决的承认和执行（OJ 2001 L12，第1页）（特别见C154/11Mahamdia[2012] ECR，第44和46段）。

13–

SeeICF, paragraph26.

14–

See, in particular, Giuliano Lagarde Report, p.25.
具体见《朱利亚诺·拉加德报告》，第25页。

15–

SeeKoelzsch, paragraph42.

16–

See the considerations set out in the Giuliano Lagarde Report, pp.25 and 26.
见《朱利亚诺·拉加德报告》第25页和第26页所载的考虑。

17–

See, in that regard, Lagarde, P., ‘Convention de Rome’,Répertoire de droit communautaire Dalloz, 1992, paragraph85.
在这方面，见Lagarde， P.， 'Rome Convention'， Répertoire de droit communautaire Dalloz， 1992， 第85段。

18–

Pataut, É., ‘Conflits de loi en droit du travail’,Jurisclasseur droit international, fascicule 573-10, November 2008, paragraph14.
Pataut， É.， 'Conflict of law in labor law'， Jurisclasseur droit international， fascicle 573-10， November 2008， 第14段。

19–

SeeVoogsgeerd, paragraph32.

20–

SeeKoelzsch, paragraph36.

21–

In that regard, it has been pointed out that, in accordance with the principle of proximity, the ‘fairest’ law is the ‘closest’ law and not the ‘best’ from the standpoint of its substantive content (Ballarino, T., and Romano, G.P., ‘Le principe de proximité chez Paul Lagarde’,Le droit international privé: esprit et methods— Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde, Dalloz, 2005, p.2).
在这方面，有人指出，根据接近原则，从其实质内容的角度来看，“最公平”的法律是“最接近”的法律，而不是“最好的”法律（Ballarino， T.， and Romano， G.P.， 'Le principe de proximité chez Paul Lagarde'，Le droit international privé： esprit et methods— Mélanges en l'honneur de Paul Lagarde， Dalloz，2005年，第2页）。

22–

SeeKoelzsch, paragraphs41 and 42.
见Koelzsch，第41和42段。

23–

Evidenced, for example, by the facts which gave rise toVoogsgeerd, which concerned a dispute between a Netherlands national and a company established in Luxembourg, concerning an employment contract concluded in Belgium. In the performance of the contract, MrVoogsgeerd received instructions from another company, closely connected with his employer, but established in Belgium.
例如，引起Voogsgeerd案的事实就是证明，该案涉及一名荷兰国民与一家在卢森堡成立的公司之间关于在比利时签订的雇用合同的纠纷。在履行合同的过程中，Voogsgeerd先生收到了另一家公司的指示，该公司与他的雇主关系密切，但在比利时成立。

24–

A very similar discussion has taken place with regard to the relationship between the presumptions provided for in Article4(2) and (4) of the Rome Convention and the possibility, provided for in Article4(5) of that convention, to disregard them if it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country (see the Opinion of Advocate General Bot inICF, points71 to 73).
关于《罗马公约》第4条第（2）款和第（4）款规定的推定与该公约第4条第（5）款所规定的推定之间的关系，如果从整体情况来看，合同与另一国的联系更为密切，则可以无视这些推定的可能性，也进行了非常相似的讨论（见ICF总检察长Bot的意见。 第71至73点）。

25–

See paragraph42 of the judgment.
见判决书第42段。

26–

Ibid., paragraph43.

27–

See paragraphs31 to 41 of the judgment.
见判决书第31至41段。

28–

That ‘marginalisation’ of the place of engagement as a connecting criterion is explained, it seems to me, by the fortuitous or artificial nature that it may have, but in particular by the fact that the employer generally has full control over the determination of that place, which is likely to infringe the principle of protection of the employee.
在我看来，将工作地点作为一项联系标准“边缘化”的解释是，它可能具有偶然性或人为性，但特别是雇主通常完全控制该地点的确定，这很可能违反保护雇员的原则。

29–

It is interesting to note that, in the Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument and its modernisation (COM(2002) 654 final, p.38)), it is stated that ‘whether or not the worker habitually carries out his work in the same country, the objective connection defined by the Convention can be overridden by an exception clause (end of Article6(2)), which for the worker avoids the harmful consequences of rigid connection of the contract to the law of the place of performance’.
值得注意的是，在关于将1980年《关于合同义务适用法律的罗马公约》转变为共同体文书及其现代化的绿皮书（COM（2002）654 final，第38页）中指出，“无论工人是否习惯性地在同一国家从事工作， 《公约》所界定的客观联系可以被例外条款（第6条第（2）款末尾）所取代，该条款对工人来说避免了合同与履约地法律僵化联系的有害后果。

30–

See paragraph19 of the judgment.
见判决书第19段。

31–

For a summary of the arguments put forward in that regard, see paragraphs50 to 52 ofICF.
关于在这方面提出的论点的摘要，见ICF第50至52段。

32–

Ibid., paragraphs58 to 62.
同上，第58至62段。

33–

Ibid., paragraph64.

34–

Under that provision, ‘[w]here it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the contract is manifestly more closely connected with a country other than that indicated in paragraphs1 or 2, the law of that other country shall apply’.
根据该条文，“凡从本案的所有情况中可以清楚地看出，合同与第1款或第2款所指国家以外的国家有明显更密切的联系，则应适用该另一国的法律”。

35–

Moreover, this is the case even though it has been argued that that difference in wording probably resulted, in the absence of explanation in the explanatory memorandum for that regulation, from an oversight (see Gaudemet-Tallon, H.,Jurisclasseur Droit international, fascicule 552-15, 2009, paragraph84).
此外，情况确实如此，尽管有人争辩说，在对该条例的解释性备忘录中没有解释的情况下，措辞上的差异可能是由于疏忽造成的（见Gaudemet-Tallon， H.，Jurisclasseur Droit international， fascicule 552-15， 2009， 第84段）。

36–

See the Green Paper on the conversion of the Rome Convention of 1980 on the law applicable to contractual obligations into a Community instrument and its modernisation, p.28.
见关于将1980年《关于合同义务适用的法律的罗马公约》转变为共同体文书及其现代化的绿皮书，第28页。

37–

See paragraph46 of the judgment.
见判决书第46段。

38–

See the considerations set out in points21 and 22 of this Opinion.
见本意见第21点和第22点所述的考虑。

39–

As is clear fromKoelzsch, paragraph42, it is in the State in which the work is carried out that the employee performs his economic and social duties.
从Koelzsch第42段中可以清楚地看出，雇员是在从事工作的国家履行其经济和社会职责的。

40–

See, in particular, Article13(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No1408/71 of the Council of 14June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p.416), as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No118/97 of 2December 1996 (OJ 1997 L28, p.1); Article11(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L166, p.1), and Article16(1) of Regulation (EC) No987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L284, p.1).
具体见1971年6月14日理事会第1408/71号条例（EEC）第13（2）（a）条，该条关于将社会保障计划适用于在共同体内流动的就业人员及其家庭（OJ，英文特别版1971（II），第416页），经1996年12月2日理事会条例（EC）第118/97号（OJ 1997 L28， 第1页）;2004 年 4 月 29 日欧洲议会和理事会关于社会保障体系协调的第 883/2004 号条例 （EC） 第 11（3）（a） 条（OJ 2004 L166，第 1 页）以及 2009 年 9 月 16 日欧洲议会和理事会第 （EC） 第 987/2009 号条例 （EC） 第 16（1） 条，规定了实施关于社会保障体系协调的第 883/2004 号条例 （EC） 的程序（OJ 2009 L284， 第 1 页）。

41–

In that regard, Article18 of Regulation No987/2009 states that ‘[a] request by the employer or the person concerned for exceptions to Articles11 to 15 of the basic Regulation shall be submitted, whenever possible in advance, to the competent authority or the body designated by the authority of the Member State, whose legislation the employee or person concerned requests be applied’.
在这方面，第987/2009号条例第18条规定，“雇主或有关人员对基本条例第11条至第15条的例外情况的请求应尽可能事先提交给主管当局或成员国当局指定的机构，雇员或有关人员要求适用其立法”。