H, a British national, was engaged as chief officer on the Maltese-flagged yacht Bombay, owned by Bombay Shipping. On 27 October 2021, an employment contract, drawn up in English, was signed by H and Crew 21 Ltd with retroactive effect from 2 September 2021. It contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of the yacht's flag State, Malta. This was replaced by a new employment contract dated 26 November 2021, which contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts of Guernsey. In May 2022, the master of the yacht sent H a draft agreement to terminate his employment relationship for gross misconduct.

On 12 October 2022, the enforcement Judge of the Toulon Judicial Court, on H's application, authorised the arrest of the Bombay to secure H's claims, and ordered Bombay Shipping to pay a deposit of EUR 90,000. The lifting of the ship arrest took place on 31 October 2022 following a deposit of funds.

H brought a claim before the Industrial Tribunal of Grasse on 9 November 2022, seeking to establish the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the application of French law to his employment relationship. By a judgment of 7 December 2023, the Industrial Tribunal of Grasse declared itself incompetent.

H appealed. His case was referred to Chamber 4-6, which has jurisdiction over maritime law cases. On appeal, H argued that the French courts had jurisdiction to rule on the dispute between him and his employers, and specifically that the Industrial Tribunal of Grasse had jurisdiction. H argued that the foreign jurisdiction clause included in the employment contract was not enforceable against him, that he was domiciled and performed his work in France, and that (among other reasons) the French courts were competent under art 7 of the Arrest Convention 1952, which affords jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case to the courts of the State in which the ship arrest was effected.

The respondents argued that H's only employer was Crew 21 Ltd. H never received instructions from Bombay Shipping. Therefore, neither employee nor employer was a member of a State of the European Union. The jurisdiction clauses in the employment contracts were clear and lawful. H had the opportunity of taking action either before the Maltese courts if he considered that the first employment contract was applicable, or before the Guernsey courts referred to in the second contract. By virtue of the jurisdiction clauses, the Arrest Convention 1952 was excluded from the dispute between the parties, which could only be governed by the employment contract and EU law.

Held: Appeal upheld.

In the European Union, the rules relating to jurisdiction are those laid down by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012, which entered into force on 10 January 2015, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Brussels I bis Regulation). This Regulation includes provisions relating to jurisdiction in matters of individual employment contracts (arts 20-23). However, art 71 provides that the Regulation does not affect Conventions to which Member States are parties and which, in specific matters, govern jurisdiction or the recognition or enforcement of judgments.

The Arrest Convention 1952 contains special jurisdictional provisions derogating from the general rules of jurisdiction laid down in the Brussels Regulation. Pursuant to art 2 of the Arrest Convention 1952, the arrest of a vessel may be authorised where the claimant relies on a maritime claim having one of the grounds exhaustively listed in art 1. According to art 1 of the Convention, a 'maritime claim' includes the allegation of a right or claim having one of the following causes: 'm. wages of Masters, Officers, or crew'.

Article 7 of this Convention provides that:

(1) The Courts of the country in which the arrest was made shall have jurisdiction to determine the case upon its merits if the domestic law of the country in which the arrest is made gives jurisdiction to such Courts, or in any of the following cases namely:

(a) if the claimant has his habitual residence or principal place of business in the country in which the arrest was made;

(b) if the claim arose in the country in which the arrest was made;

(c) if the claim concerns the voyage of the ship during which the arrest was made;

(d) if the claim arose out of a collision or in circumstances covered by article 13 of the International Convention for the unification of certain rules of law with respect to collisions between vessels, signed at Brussels on 23rd September 1910;

(e) if the claim is for salvage;

(f) if the claim is upon a mortgage or hypothecation of the ship arrested.

(2) If the Court within whose jurisdiction the ship was arrested has not jurisdiction to decide upon the merits, the bail or other security given in accordance with article 5 to procure the release of the ship shall specifically provide that it is given as security for the satisfaction of any judgment which may eventually be pronounced by a Court having jurisdiction so to decide; and the Court or other appropriate judicial authority of the country in which the claimant shall bring an action before a Court having such jurisdiction.

(3) If the parties have agreed to submit the dispute to the jurisdiction of a particular Court other than that within whose jurisdiction the arrest was made or to arbitration, the Court or other appropriate judicial authority within whose jurisdiction the arrest was made may fix the time within which the claimant shall bring proceedings.

(4) If, in any of the cases mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs, the action or proceeding is not brought within the time so fixed, the defendant may apply for the release of the ship or of the bail or other security.

(5) This article shall not apply in cases covered by the provisions of the revised Rhine Navigation Convention of 17 October 1868.

Article 8 of the Arrest Convention 1952 states:

(1) The provisions of this Convention shall apply to any vessel flying the flag of a Contracting State in the jurisdiction of any Contracting State.

(2) A ship flying the flag of a non-Contracting State may be arrested in the jurisdiction of any Contracting State in respect of any of the maritime claims enumerated in article 1 or of any other claim for which the law of the Contracting State permits arrest.

It is settled that while the French courts have sole jurisdiction to rule on the validity of a ship arrest carried out in France and to assess, on this occasion, the principle of the claim, they may only rule on the merits of this claim if their jurisdiction is based on another rule. (1st Civ, 11 February 1997, appeal no 94-21.500)

It follows from arts 5 and 7.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952 that the lifting of a ship arrest by means of the provision of security does not have the effect of calling into question the jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the proceedings of the courts of the State in which the ship arrest was carried out. (Soc, 26 October 2022, appeal no 20-12.066)

In this case, H was authorised by an order of the enforcement judge of the Toulon Judicial Court signed on 12 October 2022 to arrest the Bombay on which he worked under the Convention to which France is a signatory.

The claim alleged by H corresponds to back pay, severance pay, damages for separate loss due to the lack of compensation from the Pôle Emploi (the French national employment agency), and a lump sum indemnity for concealed work. It follows that this is a maritime claim within the meaning of art 1 of the Convention.

H claims the application of art 7.1 of the Convention, specifically:

(a) if the claimant has his habitual residence or principal place of business in the country in which the arrest was made;

(b) if the claim arose in the country in which the arrest was made; ...

On the evidence, the employee's claim originates from an employment relationship that took place mainly in France. Therefore, pursuant to the Arrest Convention 1952, the courts of the French State in which the arrest was effected have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case if their jurisdiction is based on another rule.

It results from the combined application of the provisions of arts L 5000-3 and L 5542-48 of the Transport Code and R 221-13 of the Code of Judicial Organisation (replaced by Article R 211-3-5), in their wording applicable to the dispute, that the Industrial Tribunal has sole jurisdiction to hear disputes between a shipowner and a seafarer concerning the conclusion, execution, or termination of an maritime employment contract on a foreign vessel. (Soc, 28 March 2018, appeal no 16-20.746)

It is settled law that a jurisdiction clause included in an international contract cannot override the mandatory provisions of art R 1412-1 of the French Labour Code which is applicable according to the international public order. (Soc, 29 September 2010, appeal no 09-40.688) Thus, the jurisdiction clause inserted in the employment contract of 26 November 2021 in favour of the courts of Guernsey cannot have the effect of overriding the mandatory provisions of Article R1412-1 of the Labour Code. It must therefore be set aside.

H was therefore correct to refer the matter to the industrial tribunal of his place of residence, namely the Industrial Tribunal of Grasse.

The judgment under appeal is overturned insofar as it declared the Industrial Tribunal of Grasse to be incompetent. The exception of territorial incompetence raised by the respondent companies is dismissed. The case is referred back to the trial bench of the Industrial Tribunal of Grasse.