Article 6
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3, 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 paragraph 2 in the absence of choice.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 4, a contract of employment shall, in the absence of choice in accordance with Article 3, be governed:
(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
(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;
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.
Verein für Konsumenteninformation v TVP Treuhand- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Publikumsfonds mbH & Co KG
A trust agreement under which services owed to a consumer are provided, at a distance from another country, in the country of the consumer's habitual residence does not fall within the exclusion in Article 5(4)(b) of the Rome Convention and Article 6(4)(a) of Regulation No 593/2008.
Verein für Konsumenteninformation v TVP Treuhand- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft für Publikumsfonds mbH & Co KG
A non-negotiated choice-of-law term in a trust agreement between a professional and a consumer for the management of shares in a limited partnership, selecting the law of the Member State of the partnership's seat, is unfair where it gives the consumer the impression that only that law applies and does not inform the consumer that, under Article 5(2) of the Rome Convention and Article 6(2) of Regulation No 593/2008, the consumer also enjoys the protection of the mandatory provisions of the national law that would apply without that term.
Jan Voogsgeerd v Navimer SA.
The national court seised must first determine whether, in performing the contract, the employee habitually carries out his work in any one country - that is, the country in which or from which, in the light of all the aspects characterising that activity, he performs the main part of his duties to his employer.
Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand Duchy of Luxemburg.
Where an employee works in more than one Contracting State, the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work under Article 6(2)(a) is the country in which or from which, in the light of all the factors characterising that activity, he performs the greater part of his obligations to his employer.