Abstract: In its July 9, 2026, ruling in Case C-768/24, the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that, for the purpose of determining the law applicable to a transnational employment relationship, the criterion to be considered is that of the “closest connection,” which must be assessed based on the objective elements characterising the relationship itself. The dispute arose from the dismissal, under Swiss law, of a senior manager who lived and habitually worked in France. Although the employment relationship was governed by Swiss law, the employee challenged the dismissal, seeking to apply French law, which provides stronger procedural protections. After the Paris Court of Appeal applied French law and declared the dismissal unlawful, the company appealed, arguing that the courts had not assessed whether the contract was more closely connected with Switzerland. The “closest connection” criterion. The Court of Justice of the European Union was called upon to determine whether, in the presence of a law chosen by the parties (in this case, Swiss law), the court must nevertheless apply the legal provisions that would be applicable in the absence of such a choice, or whether the chosen law may prevail when the contract has a closer connection to the relevant country. The central issue is therefore the relationship between the protective rule — which preserves for the employee the benefit of the mandatory provisions of the otherwise applicable law — and the exception clause of the "closest connection", which allows a departure from both the criterion of the habitual place of work and that of the place of engagement. The Rome Convention. The Court of Justice held that Article 6 of the Rome Convention lays down specific rules for individual employment contracts: the parties’ choice of law cannot deprive the employee of the protection granted by the mandatory provisions of the law that would apply absent such choice. The applicable law must therefore be identified by reference to the criteria set out in Article 6(2), including the “closest connection” clause. The Court further clarifies that, even where the parties have selected the law governing the contract, the national court must identify the law that would apply in the absence of that choice and then determine, in light of all relevant circumstances, whether the contract is more closely connected with another country. Where the employment contract, viewed as a whole, is more closely connected with the country whose law was chosen, that law must prevail, thereby excluding the more protective mandatory provisions of the law that would otherwise apply under the ordinary criteria in Article 6(2)(a) and (b). The Assessment of the Objective Elements of the Employment Relationship. The Court has also clarified that the choice of law is not, in and of itself, an independent connecting factor. In fact, the objective elements arising from that choice in the performance of the employment relationship may be considered in the overall assessment, provided that the court weighs them according to their relevance and significance, thereby preventing the employer from exploiting the connecting factors for its own purposes. Worker protection and the logic of objective connection. The decision confirms that, in private international labour law, employee protection is not necessarily achieved by applying the most favourable law, but rather the law of the system most closely connectedto the employment relationship. The ruling therefore requires a concrete, overall assessment of the employment relationship, with the national court balancing party autonomy, legal certainty and the protective purpose of the rules on international employment contracts. Ultimately, the ruling confirms that party autonomy in employment contracts remains limited by Article 6’s protective function, which operates through an objective connection to the relationship and not automatically in the employee’s favour.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
