歐盟民商事訴訟管轄權(quán)規(guī)則的新發(fā)展-以保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)為例

歐盟民商事訴訟管轄權(quán)規(guī)則的新發(fā)展—以保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)為例楊靈一作者簡(jiǎn)介：楊靈一，女，安徽省六安市人，武漢大學(xué)國(guó)際教育學(xué)院研究生，研究方向：世界貿(mào)易組織法。要：在弱者保護(hù)方面，歐盟最早從管轄權(quán)方面給予弱者特殊保護(hù)。分別在《布魯塞爾公約》和《布魯塞爾條例》中對(duì)保險(xiǎn)合同、消費(fèi)者合同和個(gè)人雇傭合同中的弱勢(shì)一方規(guī)定了特殊的管轄權(quán)規(guī)則，被學(xué)者稱(chēng)為保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)。但是目前，基于保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)在法律地位、保護(hù)對(duì)象和管轄依據(jù)等方面還存在著諸多問(wèn)題，歐盟法院通過(guò)具體案件的判決對(duì)其適用做出規(guī)范。最新的C－585/08和C－144/09作者簡(jiǎn)介：楊靈一，女，安徽省六安市人，武漢大學(xué)國(guó)際教育學(xué)院研究生，研究方向：世界貿(mào)易組織法。關(guān)鍵詞：保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)；布魯塞爾公約；布魯塞爾條例Abstract:Intheprotectionoftheweak，EUfirstlygivespecialprotectionfortheweakfromtheaspectofjurisdiction，providingspecialjurisdictiontotheweakpartyintheinsurancecontract,consumercontractandindividualemploymentcontractinBrusselsConventionandBrusselsRegulationseparately，whichiscalledbyscholarsasprotectivejurisdiction.However，atpresent，onthebasisthatprotectivejurisdictionstillhasmuchproblemsintheaspectoflegalstatus,protectionobjectandjurisdictionbasis，ECJregulatetheapplicationofprotectivejurisdictionthroughspecificcases.ThejudgementofC－585/08andC－144/09interpretBrusselsRegulationArt.15indetail.Inordertoregulateprotectivejurisdiction，theinternationalcommunityshouldpaymoreattentionandmakejointefforts.Keywords:Protectivejurisdiction；BrusselsConvention；BrusselsRegulation目前國(guó)際社會(huì)對(duì)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)還沒(méi)有統(tǒng)一和明確的定義，它最早出現(xiàn)在歐盟《布魯塞爾公約》1968BrusselsConventiononjurisdictionandtheenforcementofjudgmentsincivilandcommercialmatters／＊ConsolidatedversionCF498Y0126（01）OfficialspecialeditionL299，31/12/1971（1968）文本中，第三節(jié)和第四節(jié)對(duì)保險(xiǎn)合同、消費(fèi)者合同專(zhuān)門(mén)規(guī)定了特殊的管轄權(quán)規(guī)則，這種針對(duì)特定的保護(hù)對(duì)象而采取特殊管轄規(guī)則所形成的管轄權(quán)類(lèi)型可以被稱(chēng)為保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)。羅劍雯．歐盟民商事管轄權(quán)比較研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2003：139．伴隨著區(qū)域內(nèi)的一體化進(jìn)程，歐盟一直致力于國(guó)際私法的統(tǒng)一，但是法律在任何時(shí)候都不可能完全準(zhǔn)確地給社會(huì)的每個(gè)成員作出何謂善德、何謂正當(dāng)?shù)囊?guī)定。人之個(gè)性之差異、人之活動(dòng)的多樣性、人類(lèi)事物無(wú)休止的變化，使得人們無(wú)論擁有什么技術(shù)都無(wú)法制定出在任何時(shí)候都可以絕對(duì)適用于各種問(wèn)題的規(guī)則。博登海默，鄧正來(lái)譯．法理學(xué)——法律哲學(xué)與法律方法[M]．北京：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)出版社，2004：10—11．為了更好地維護(hù)某些弱者的利益，在一般管轄權(quán)和特殊管轄權(quán)之外，歐盟賦予處于弱勢(shì)地位的一方在管轄權(quán)方面的選擇性和主動(dòng)性。目前，歐盟對(duì)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)主要規(guī)定在《布魯塞爾公約》和《布魯塞爾條例》CouncilRegulation(EC)No44/2001of22December2000onjurisdictionandtherecognitionandenforcementofjudgmentsincivilandcommercialmatters,OfficialJournalL12,1/16/20011968BrusselsConventiononjurisdictionandtheenforcementofjudgmentsincivilandcommercialmatters／＊ConsolidatedversionCF498Y0126（01）OfficialspecialeditionL299，31/12/1971羅劍雯．歐盟民商事管轄權(quán)比較研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2003：139．博登海默，鄧正來(lái)譯．法理學(xué)——法律哲學(xué)與法律方法[M]．北京：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)出版社，2004：10—11．CouncilRegulation(EC)No44/2001of22December2000onjurisdictionandtherecognitionandenforcementofjudgmentsincivilandcommercialmatters,OfficialJournalL12,1/16/2001鄒國(guó)勇．歐盟民商事管轄權(quán)規(guī)則的嬗變——從《布魯塞爾公約》到《布魯塞爾條例》[J]．東岳論叢，2006(5)：6．一、《布魯塞爾公約》中的保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)對(duì)消費(fèi)者合同中消費(fèi)者的保護(hù)歐盟對(duì)消費(fèi)者的保護(hù)目前在世界范圍內(nèi)是最完善的。歐盟向來(lái)將國(guó)際消費(fèi)合同中的消費(fèi)者作為弱勢(shì)一方，這是因?yàn)橄鄬?duì)于有固定組織機(jī)構(gòu)和雄厚資金實(shí)力的商家來(lái)說(shuō)，大部分消費(fèi)者都是為了生活目的購(gòu)買(mǎi)消費(fèi)品，這種實(shí)力強(qiáng)弱的對(duì)比令歐盟認(rèn)識(shí)到在歐盟國(guó)際私法統(tǒng)一化過(guò)程中，諸多消費(fèi)者利益的保護(hù)必須受到重視。SeeVesnaLazic：ProceduralJusticefor“WeakerParties”inCross-BorderLitigationundertheEUSeeVesnaLazic：ProceduralJusticefor“WeakerParties”inCross-BorderLitigationundertheEURegulatoryScheme.［J］UtrechtLawReview,Vol.10,Issue4(2014),p.101最早規(guī)定在1968年《布魯塞爾公約》，并經(jīng)歷了一個(gè)豐富完善的過(guò)程。在原始《布魯塞爾公約》文本中，第四節(jié)Section4JurisdictioninmattersrelatingtoinstalmentsalesandloansSection4JurisdictioninmattersrelatingtoinstalmentsalesandloansArticle13Inmattersrelatingtothesaleofgoodsoninstalmentcreditterms,ortoloansexpresslymadetofinancethesaleofgoodsandrepayablebyinstalments,jurisdictionshallbedeterminedbythisSection,withoutprejudicetotheprovisionsofArticles4and5(5).Article14AsellerorlenderwhoisdomiciledinaContractingStatemaybesuedeitherinthecourtofthatStateorinthecourtsoftheContractingStateinwhichthebuyerorborrowerisdomiciled.ProceedingsmaybebroughtbyaselleragainstabuyerorbyalenderagainstaborroweronlyinthecourtsoftheStateinwhichthedefendantisdomiciled.Theseprovisionsshallnotaffecttherighttobringacounterclaiminthecourtinwhich,inaccordancewiththisSection,theoriginalclaimispending.Article15TheprovisionsofthisSectionmaybedepartedfromonlybyanagreement:1.whichisenteredintoafterthedisputehasarisenor2.whichallowsthebuyerortheborrowertobringproceedingsincourtsotherthanthoseindicatedinthisSectionor3.whichisconcludedbetweenabuyerandaseller,orbetweenaborrowerandalender,bothofwhomaredomiciledorhabituallyresidentinthesameContractingState,andwhichconfersjurisdictiononthecourtsofthatState,providedthatsuchanagreementisnotcontrarytothelawofthatState.另一方面，在協(xié)議管轄方面，公約也是作出了諸多限制以維護(hù)消費(fèi)者權(quán)益。第十五條就協(xié)議管轄規(guī)定了如下三個(gè)條件：（1）管轄協(xié)議是在糾紛產(chǎn)生后達(dá)成的；（2）管轄協(xié)議允許消費(fèi)者在消費(fèi)者住所地、被告住所地、合同履行地以外的法院起訴；（3）消費(fèi)者和提供者在締結(jié)合同時(shí)都有住所或慣常居所在同一成員國(guó)，管轄權(quán)也授予該國(guó)法院并且不與該國(guó)法律相抵觸。以上條件與保險(xiǎn)合同管轄協(xié)議的規(guī)定基本一致，比如在時(shí)間上都是在糾紛發(fā)生后，避免格式合同對(duì)消費(fèi)者利益和選擇權(quán)的減損；管轄法院都可以擴(kuò)大至上述三種法院之外，只要不與該國(guó)法律相抵觸即可。但有一點(diǎn)不同，要求合同締結(jié)時(shí)雙方的住所或者慣常居所在同一成員國(guó)，增加了慣常居所這一連接因素。這樣規(guī)定比保險(xiǎn)合同協(xié)議管轄更靈活，因?yàn)橄M(fèi)者合同比較容易達(dá)成，消費(fèi)者慣常在哪里居住，就需要在該地消費(fèi)。慣常居所與協(xié)議的聯(lián)系可能更為緊密，體現(xiàn)了公約對(duì)消費(fèi)者，特別是真正的弱勢(shì)消費(fèi)者群體的特殊保護(hù)。在管轄權(quán)這種程序性事項(xiàng)上，公約已經(jīng)盡可能在消費(fèi)者選擇權(quán)上加大力度?？偟膩?lái)說(shuō)，1968年《布魯塞爾公約》對(duì)兩種類(lèi)型的消費(fèi)者合同的消費(fèi)者提供了三種管轄權(quán)選擇，在協(xié)議管轄的情況下還可以突破上述三種法院管轄權(quán)的限制。隨著歐盟境內(nèi)一體化進(jìn)程的開(kāi)展，人員與貨物流通出現(xiàn)進(jìn)一步擴(kuò)大的趨勢(shì)。僅僅在這兩種消費(fèi)者合同上采取保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)已經(jīng)不能適應(yīng)類(lèi)型日益豐富的消費(fèi)者合同了。為避免保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)只保護(hù)部分消費(fèi)者，為此，歐共體在英國(guó)和愛(ài)爾蘭加入《布魯塞爾公約》之際，通過(guò)《1978年加入公約》CouncilConventionontheaccessionoftheKingdomofDenmark,IrelandandtheUnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthernIrelandtotheConventiononjurisdictionandtheenforcementofjudgmentsincivilandcommercialmattersandtotheProtocolonitsinterpretationbytheCourtofJustice（Signedon9October1978）（78/884/EEC）對(duì)第十三條消費(fèi)者合同的范圍進(jìn)行了擴(kuò)充，第四節(jié)Section4CouncilConventionontheaccessionoftheKingdomofDenmark,IrelandandtheUnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthernIrelandtotheConventiononjurisdictionandtheenforcementofjudgmentsincivilandcommercialmattersandtotheProtocolonitsinterpretationbytheCourtofJustice（Signedon9October1978）（78/884/EEC）Section4JurisdictionoverconsumercontractsArticle13Inproceedingsconcerningacontractconcludedbyapersonforapurposewhichcanberegardedasbeingoutsidehistradeorprofession,hereinaftercalled"theconsumer",jurisdictionshallbedeterminedbythissection,withoutprejudicetotheprovisionsofArticles4and5(5),ifitis:1.acontractforthesaleofgoodsoninstalmentcreditterms,or2.acontractforaloanrepayablebyinstalments,orforanyotherformofcredit,madetofinancethesaleofgoods,or3.anyothercontractforthesupplyofgoodsoracontractforthesupplyofservices,and(a)intheStateoftheconsumer'sdomiciletheconclusionofthecontractwasprecededbyaspecificinvitationadressedtohimorbyadvertising,and(b)theconsumertookinthatStatethestepsnecessaryfortheconclusionofthecontract.WhereaconsumerentersintoacontractwithapartywhoisnotdomiciledinaContractingStatebuthasabranch,agencyorotherestablishmentinoneoftheContractingStates,thatpartyshall,indisputesarisingoutoftheoperationsofthebranch,agencyorestablishment,bedeemedtobedomiciledinthatState.Thissectionshallnotapplytocontractsoftransport.對(duì)保險(xiǎn)合同中保單持有人、被保險(xiǎn)人、受益人的保護(hù)對(duì)保險(xiǎn)合同保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的規(guī)定在1968年《布魯塞爾公約》文本第七條至第十二條。第七條Article7Inmattersrelatingtoinsurance,jurisdictionshallbedeterminedbythisSection,withoutprejudicetotheprovisionsofArticles4and5(5).首先指出雖然對(duì)保險(xiǎn)事項(xiàng)作了特殊規(guī)定，但是前面的一般規(guī)定（第四條和第五條第五款）仍然適用，擴(kuò)大了原告可以選擇的法院的范圍。第四條構(gòu)成了基礎(chǔ)管轄權(quán)依據(jù)，即原告可以在被告住所地起訴。第五條第五款進(jìn)一步細(xì)化了被告住所地這一連結(jié)因素，將管轄擴(kuò)大到保險(xiǎn)人的分支、代理或其他機(jī)構(gòu)所在地法院。第八條Article8AninsurerdomiciledinaContractingStatemaybesued,eitherinthecourtsofthatState,orinanotherContractingStateinthecourtsfortheplacewherethepolicy-holderisdomiciled,or,iftwoormoreinsurersarethedefendants,inthecourtsoftheContractingStatewhereanyoneofthemisdomiciled.Aninsurermayalso,ifthereisprovisionforsuchjurisdictioninthelawofthecourtseisedofthematter,besuedinaContractingStateotherthanthatofhisdomicileinthecourtsfortheplacewheretheagentwhoactedasintermediaryinthemakingofthecontractofinsurancehashisdomicile,providedthatthisdomicileismentionedintheinsurancepolicyorproposal.Article7Inmattersrelatingtoinsurance,jurisdictionshallbedeterminedbythisSection,withoutprejudicetotheprovisionsofArticles4and5(5).Article8AninsurerdomiciledinaContractingStatemaybesued,eitherinthecourtsofthatState,orinanotherContractingStateinthecourtsfortheplacewherethepolicy-holderisdomiciled,or,iftwoormoreinsurersarethedefendants,inthecourtsoftheContractingStatewhereanyoneofthemisdomiciled.Aninsurermayalso,ifthereisprovisionforsuchjurisdictioninthelawofthecourtseisedofthematter,besuedinaContractingStateotherthanthatofhisdomicileinthecourtsfortheplacewheretheagentwhoactedasintermediaryinthemakingofthecontractofinsurancehashisdomicile,providedthatthisdomicileismentionedintheinsurancepolicyorproposal.AninsurerwhoisnotdomiciledinaContractingStatebuthasabranchoranagencyinoneoftheContractingStatesshall,indisputesarisingoutoftheoperationsofthebranchoragency,bedeemedtobedomiciledinthatState.Article9Inrespectofliabilityinsuranceorinsuranceofimmovableproperty,theinsurermayinadditionbesuedinthecourtsfortheplacewheretheharmfuleventoccurred.Thesameappliesifmovableandimmovablepropertyarecoveredbythesameinsurancepolicyandbothareadverselyaffectedbythesamecontingency.Article10Inrespectofliabilityinsurance,theinsurermayalso,ifthelawofthecourtpermitsit,bejoinedinproceedingswhichtheinjuredpartyhasbroughtagainsttheinsured.TheprovisionsofArticles7,8and9shallapplytoactionsbroughtbytheinjuredpartydirectlyagainsttheinsurer,wheresuchdirectactionsarepermitted.Ifthelawgoverningsuchdirectactionsprovidesthatthepolicy-holderortheinsuredmaybejoinedasapartytotheaction,thesamecourtshallhavejurisdictionoverthem.除此之外，公約還承認(rèn)意思自治原則，允許當(dāng)事人協(xié)議選擇法院的管轄權(quán)，不過(guò)這里也體現(xiàn)了公約對(duì)弱方的保護(hù)，設(shè)置了諸多對(duì)保險(xiǎn)人的限制。主要規(guī)定在第十二條Article12Article12TheprovisionsofthisSectionmaybedepartedfromonlybyanagreement:1.whichisenteredintoafterthedisputehasarisenor2.whichallowsthepolicy-holder,theinsuredorabeneficiarytobringproceedingsincourtsotherthanthoseindicatedinthisSectionor3.whichisconcludedbetweenapolicy-holderandaninsurer,bothofwhomaredomiciledinthesameContractingState,andwhichhasthe,effectofconferringjurisdictiononthecourtsofthatStateeveniftheharmfuleventweretooccurabroad,providedthatsuchanagreementisnotcontrarytothelawofthatState.相較于公約對(duì)保單持有人、被保險(xiǎn)人、受益人的傾斜保護(hù)，第七條至第十二條中僅有第十一條對(duì)保險(xiǎn)人起訴的權(quán)利作出了規(guī)定：“在不妨礙第十條第三款規(guī)定的情況下，保險(xiǎn)人只能在被告住所地的締約國(guó)法院提起訴訟，不論被告是保單持有人、被保險(xiǎn)人或受益人?！边@條雖然保障了保險(xiǎn)人基本的訴訟權(quán)利，但是在管轄權(quán)方面設(shè)置了限制，即只能在被告住所地的締約國(guó)法院提起訴訟，在選擇范圍上大大少于保單持有人、被保險(xiǎn)人、受益人的選擇權(quán)。雖然有學(xué)者指出該條第二款條款同樣適用于保險(xiǎn)人針對(duì)保單持有人、被保險(xiǎn)人或者受益人的反訴情形，這樣一來(lái)，實(shí)際上是避開(kāi)了保險(xiǎn)人不得在其本人的住所地、侵權(quán)行為發(fā)生地等締約國(guó)法院主動(dòng)起訴上述當(dāng)事人的限制，從而保護(hù)自己應(yīng)有的合法權(quán)益。羅劍雯．羅劍雯．歐盟民商事管轄權(quán)比較研究[M]．北京：法律出版社，2003：141．對(duì)個(gè)人雇傭合同中受雇人的保護(hù)前述在消費(fèi)者合同管轄權(quán)保護(hù)中已經(jīng)提到，貨物消費(fèi)合同、服務(wù)消費(fèi)合同都受到歐盟的特殊保護(hù)。隨著服務(wù)貿(mào)易的發(fā)展，越來(lái)越多的人選擇到另一個(gè)國(guó)家提供勞務(wù)，這種提供個(gè)人雇傭服務(wù)的受雇者的法律保護(hù)也逐漸受到歐盟的重視。在管轄權(quán)方面，歐盟通過(guò)《1989年加入公約》ConventionontheaccessionoftheKingdomofSpainandthePortugueseRepublictotheConventiononjurisdictionandtheenforcementofjudgmentsincivilandcommercialmattersandtotheProtocolonitsinterpretationbytheCourtofJusticewiththeadjustmentsmadetothembytheConventionontheaccessionoftheKingdomofDenmark,ofIrelandandoftheUnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthernIrelandandtheadjustmentsmadetothembytheConventionontheaccessionoftheHellenicRepublicConventionontheaccessionoftheKingdomofSpainandthePortugueseRepublictotheConventiononjurisdictionandtheenforcementofjudgmentsincivilandcommercialmattersandtotheProtocolonitsinterpretationbytheCourtofJusticewiththeadjustmentsmadetothembytheConventionontheaccessionoftheKingdomofDenmark,ofIrelandandoftheUnitedKingdomofGreatBritainandNorthernIrelandandtheadjustmentsmadetothembytheConventionontheaccessionoftheHellenicRepublic（89/535/EEC）經(jīng)過(guò)1989年的修訂，《布魯塞爾公約》第五條第一款指明個(gè)人雇傭合同的管轄權(quán)依據(jù)是受雇人慣常工作地，或者當(dāng)受雇人在一國(guó)境內(nèi)并無(wú)慣常工作地地時(shí)，由受雇者過(guò)去或現(xiàn)在受雇人的業(yè)務(wù)所在地法院管轄。其突出進(jìn)步意義在于運(yùn)用了特征性履行的方法，可以受雇人獲得了更為廣泛而且便利的起訴選擇權(quán)。受雇人慣常工作地是動(dòng)態(tài)連結(jié)因素，可以使得與受雇人利益有最密切聯(lián)系的法院獲得管轄權(quán)，從而對(duì)抗雇傭人的優(yōu)勢(shì)地位。此外，該公約通過(guò)第十七條承認(rèn)受雇人與雇傭人之間所訂立的管轄協(xié)議的效力。具體規(guī)定與《海牙管轄權(quán)公約》中對(duì)消費(fèi)者合同協(xié)議管轄權(quán)的規(guī)定是一致的，即首先肯定糾紛發(fā)生后訂立的管轄協(xié)議的效力，同時(shí)也在一定條件下承認(rèn)糾紛發(fā)生之前所訂立的管轄協(xié)議的效力，即只有受雇人可以其他法院中選擇。二、《布魯塞爾條例》中的保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)對(duì)消費(fèi)者合同中消費(fèi)者的保護(hù)由于《布魯塞爾公約》的制定背景，當(dāng)時(shí)并沒(méi)有對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)消費(fèi)者合同作出說(shuō)明，公約逐漸無(wú)法適應(yīng)迅速發(fā)展的網(wǎng)絡(luò)消費(fèi)者合同。此后，歐盟在《布魯塞爾條例》中做了補(bǔ)充規(guī)定。主要規(guī)定在第四部分Section4JurisdictionoverconsumercontractsArticle151.Inmattersrelatingtoacontractconcludedbyaperson,theconsumer,forapurposewhichcanberegardedasbeingoutsidehistradeorprofession,jurisdictionshallbedeterminedbythisSection,withoutprejudicetoArticle4andpoint5ofArticle5,if:(a)itisacontractforthesaleofgoodsoninstalmentcreditterms;or(b)itisacontractforaloanrepayablebyinstalments,orforanyotherformofcredit,madetofinancethesaleofgoods;orSection4JurisdictionoverconsumercontractsArticle151.Inmattersrelatingtoacontractconcludedbyaperson,theconsumer,forapurposewhichcanberegardedasbeingoutsidehistradeorprofession,jurisdictionshallbedeterminedbythisSection,withoutprejudicetoArticle4andpoint5ofArticle5,if:(a)itisacontractforthesaleofgoodsoninstalmentcreditterms;or(b)itisacontractforaloanrepayablebyinstalments,orforanyotherformofcredit,madetofinancethesaleofgoods;or(c)inallothercases,thecontracthasbeenconcludedwithapersonwhopursuescommercialorprofessionalactivitiesintheMemberStateoftheconsumer'sdomicileor,byanymeans,directssuchactivitiestothatMemberStateortoseveralStatesincludingthatMemberState,andthecontractfallswithinthescopeofsuchactivities.2.WhereaconsumerentersintoacontractwithapartywhoisnotdomiciledintheMemberStatebuthasabranch,agencyorotherestablishmentinoneoftheMemberStates,thatpartyshall,indisputesarisingoutoftheoperationsofthebranch,agencyorestablishment,bedeemedtobedomiciledinthatState.3.ThisSectionshallnotapplytoacontractoftransportotherthanacontractwhich,foraninclusiveprice,providesforacombinationoftravelandaccommodation.劉益燈．跨國(guó)消費(fèi)者保護(hù)的法律沖突及其解決對(duì)策[M]．北京：法律出版社，2008：264．LornaE.Gillies:Addressingthe"CyberspaceFallacy":TargetingtheJurisdictionofanElectronicConsumerContract［J］InternationalJournalofLawandInformationTecnology,Vol.16,Issue3(2008),P.245LornaE.Gillies:Addressingthe"CyberspaceFallacy":TargetingtheJurisdictionofanElectronicConsumerContract［J］InternationalJournalofLawandInformationTecnology,Vol.16,Issue3(2008),P.247對(duì)個(gè)人雇傭合同中受雇人的保護(hù)相較于《布魯塞爾公約》對(duì)個(gè)人雇傭合同管轄權(quán)分散的規(guī)定，《布魯塞爾條例》作出了專(zhuān)章規(guī)定。第五部分第十八條Article181.Inmattersrelatingtoindividualcontractsofemployment,jurisdictionshallbedeterminedbythisSection,withoutprejudicetoArticle4andpoint5ofArticle5.2.WhereanemployeeentersintoanindividualcontractofemploymentwithanemployerwhoisnotdomiciledinaMemberStatebuthasabranch,agencyorotherestablishmentinoneoftheMemberStates,theemployershall,indisputesarisingoutoftheoperationsofthebranch,agencyorestablishment,bedeemedtobedomiciledinthatMemberState.規(guī)定只要在雇傭人在締約國(guó)有住所或者盡管雇傭人在締約國(guó)境內(nèi)無(wú)住所，但如果其在有關(guān)爭(zhēng)議產(chǎn)生的締約國(guó)設(shè)有分支、代理者其他機(jī)構(gòu)，則適用于以下第十九條至第二十一條對(duì)管轄權(quán)的規(guī)定。第十九條Article19AnemployerdomiciledinaMemberStatemaybesued:Article181.Inmattersrelatingtoindividualcontractsofemployment,jurisdictionshallbedeterminedbythisSection,withoutprejudicetoArticle4andpoint5ofArticle5.2.WhereanemployeeentersintoanindividualcontractofemploymentwithanemployerwhoisnotdomiciledinaMemberStatebuthasabranch,agencyorotherestablishmentinoneoftheMemberStates,theemployershall,indisputesarisingoutoftheoperationsofthebranch,agencyorestablishment,bedeemedtobedomiciledinthatMemberState.Article19AnemployerdomiciledinaMemberStatemaybesued:1.inthecourtsoftheMemberStatewhereheisdomiciled;or2.inanotherMemberState:(a)inthecourtsfortheplacewheretheemployeehabituallycarriesouthisworkorinthecourtsforthelastplacewherehedidso,or(b)iftheemployeedoesnotordidnothabituallycarryouthisworkinanyonecountry,inthecourtsfortheplacewherethebusinesswhichengagedtheemployeeisorwassituated.Article201.AnemployermaybringproceedingsonlyinthecourtsoftheMemberStateinwhichtheemployeeisdomiciled.2.TheprovisionsofthisSectionshallnotaffecttherighttobringacounter-claiminthecourtinwhich,inaccordancewiththisSection,theoriginalclaimispending.Article21TheprovisionsofthisSectionmaybedepartedfromonlybyanagreementonjurisdiction:1.whichisenteredintoafterthedisputehasarisen;or2.whichallowstheemployeetobringproceedingsincourtsotherthanthoseindicatedinthisSection.三、保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)在實(shí)踐中的新發(fā)展—以C－585/08和C－144/09為例前面筆者對(duì)歐盟保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的具體規(guī)定做了系統(tǒng)的梳理，其中既有對(duì)條文修改的分析，也提出了理論的模糊之處。正因?yàn)楸Ｗo(hù)性管轄權(quán)在理論上還不夠規(guī)范，所以在實(shí)踐中，具體到案件中，保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)的適用出現(xiàn)了脫節(jié)的情況。歐盟在促進(jìn)保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)理論不斷完善的同時(shí)，也通過(guò)歐盟法院對(duì)相關(guān)條文做出了最新的解釋?zhuān)怨┍Ｗo(hù)性管轄權(quán)真正為弱勢(shì)一方提供保護(hù)。筆者選取了歐盟法院的案件判決，對(duì)消費(fèi)者合同糾紛適用保護(hù)性管轄權(quán)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行解釋。在C－585/08PeterPammervReedereKarlSchluterGmbH&Co和C-144/09HotelAlpenhofGesmbHvOliverHeller中，歐盟法院試圖對(duì)《布魯塞爾條例》第15條（1）（c）做出解釋。這兩個(gè)案件很重要，因?yàn)檫@是歐盟法院第一次考慮和解釋一個(gè)網(wǎng)站的行為在何種程度上能被認(rèn)定為是對(duì)居住在其他成員國(guó)消費(fèi)者的“指向”行為。CharlesWild,StuartWeinsteinandChristineRiefa:CouncilRegulation(EC)44/2001andInternetConsumerContracts:SomeThoughtsonArticle15andtheFutilityofApplying“CharlesWild,StuartWeinsteinandChristineRiefa:CouncilRegulation(EC)44/2001andInternetConsumerContracts:SomeThoughtsonArticle15andtheFutilityofApplying“IntheBox”ConflictofLawRulestothe“OutoftheBox”BorderlessWorld[J]InternationalReviewofLaw,Computer&Technology,Vol.19,Issue1(March2005),P.17.案件事實(shí)在C－585/08中，居住在澳大利亞的MrPammer通過(guò)網(wǎng)站與一個(gè)德國(guó)公司在澳大利亞的代理商達(dá)成了一項(xiàng)旅行合同，但是MrPammer認(rèn)為結(jié)果并沒(méi)有達(dá)到網(wǎng)站對(duì)合同內(nèi)容的描述和自己對(duì)此的期望。經(jīng)過(guò)協(xié)商澳大利亞代理商僅返還了部分費(fèi)用，MrPammer對(duì)此提起訴訟。澳大利亞國(guó)家法院受理后認(rèn)為需要解決兩個(gè)問(wèn)題，第一，這個(gè)合同是否構(gòu)成一攬子旅游合同，第二，MrPammer和澳大利亞代理商的郵件往來(lái)是否構(gòu)成充分的聯(lián)系（sufficientlink）以致澳大利亞擁有管轄權(quán)。澳大利亞法院認(rèn)為其享有管轄