论文部分内容阅读
在跨境劳动诉讼中寻找法律的确定性与审判结果的实质平等之间的平衡是全球性的难题。面对涉及企业分支机构的劳动纠纷的法院管辖权问题,波兰最高法院选择对《布鲁塞尔条例I(修订)》第7条第5款的缩小解释限制了劳动者的诉讼权利,以保障法律的确定性,但审判结果却背离了实质平等的理念,与《布鲁塞尔条例I(修订)》序言要求的“保护弱势方”相矛盾,直接暴露了其解释经不住体系解释推敲的弊病。因此,针对跨境劳动诉讼的法院管辖权问题,法院应综合运用文意解释、体系解释与历史解释等多种法律方法来解释并适用相关法律,以使审判结果符合立法目的,实现实质平等。
The balance between finding the law’s certainty in cross-border labor litigation and substantive equality in the outcome of the trial is a global dilemma. In the face of the issue of court jurisdiction involving labor disputes in corporate branches, the Polish Supreme Court’s choice to narrow down the interpretation of Article 7, paragraph 5, of the Brussels I (Amendment) restricts the right of workers to litigation in order to safeguard the law’s determination However, the trial results have deviated from the concept of substantive equality and contradicted the “protection of the disadvantaged party” required by the Preamble of the Brussels I (Amendment), which directly exposed its shortcomings of explaining the unsolved system. Therefore, aiming at the issue of the court jurisdiction of cross-border labor litigation, the court should explain and apply the relevant laws synthetically through a variety of legal methods such as the interpretation of texts, the explanation of the system and the historical interpretation, so as to make the trial results comply with the legislative goal and achieve substantive equality.