daily transports, but to the fact that there part of the operations was carried out, with said practice being stable, and with the choice not up to the employee only, but significant for the overall performance of the employment relationship and governed by the related agreement. If the concept of “place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work” must be “broadly” construed33, the notion of habituality radically conflicts with that of vacation, because, in the latter case, the court would not be best suited34, so much so that “where an employee performs the obligations arising under his contract of employment in several contracting States the place where he habitually works (...) is the place where or from which (...) he in fact performs the essential part of his duties vis – à - vis his employer. In the case of a contract of employment under which an employee performs for his employer the same activities in more than one contracting State, it is necessary, in principle, to take account of the whole of the duration of the employment relationship in order to identify the place where the employee habitually works (…). Failing other criteria, that will be the place where the employee has worked the longest”35, with associated incompatibility of this criterion with work carried out during vacations36. Ultimately, the place where vacations are enjoyed can never be the same as that where work is “habitually” carried out and their being one and the same has been expressly ruled out by Regulation (EU) No. 1215 / 2012, at Article 21(1)(b), first sentence, as the crowning achievement of a harmonizing evolution in international conventions and EU provisions37. VI. CONCEPTS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO “WORKATION” IN THE TOURISM SERVICE MARKET 169/2016, Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd and Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company, in Variaz. temi dir. lav., website, 2016. 33 See European Court of Justice, Third Chamber, 12 September 2013, Case no. 64/2012, Anton Schlecker v Melitta Josefa Boedeker, in Giur. it. rep., 2013. 34 See European Court of Justice, Sixth Chamber, 27 February 2002, Case no. 37/2000, Herbert Weber v. Universal Ogden services ltd., in Riv. dir. int. priv. proc., 2002, 206. 35 See European Court of Justice, Sixth Chamber, 27 February 2002, Case no. 37/2000, Herbert Weber v. Universal Ogden services ltd., cit.. 36 On the need to take account of “all the factors which characterise the activity of the employee”, see European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, 15 March 2011, Case no. 29/2010, Heiko Koelzsch v. État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, in Riv. dir. int. priv. proc., 2011, 1129. 37 See also European Court of Justice, Third Chamber, 20 October 2022, Case no. 604/2020, ROI Land Investments Ltd. v FD, in Variaz. temi dir. lav., website, 2022. 108 ENRICO GRAGNOLI
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==