Facts
B. (the plaintiff) worked as a sales assistant in a sports shop in X., belonging to the sole proprietorship Ski-Shop A. whose registered office is in Y. according to the commercial register extract. The plaintiff filed an action against A. (the defendant) with the competent district court for Y., based on the defendant's domicile in Y. for territorial jurisdiction. The defendant raised the plea of lack of jurisdiction, as he is domiciled in Z. The district court dismissed the plea of lack of jurisdiction. On appeal by the defendant, the cantonal court confirmed the jurisdiction of the district court, on the grounds that the defendant has an establishment registered in the commercial register in Y. and that the claim concerns a claim related to the operation of that establishment. The Federal Court dismisses the defendant's appeal.Considerations
The Federal Court considers that Art. 5 of the Federal Act on Jurisdiction in Civil Matters (CJurA) provides for the jurisdiction of the courts at the place of establishment for actions related to the operation of that establishment, including actions based on labour law. This is in line with the legislator's intention, supported by the prevailing doctrine, to allow the forum of the place of establishment in addition to the forum of the defendant's domicile or registered office and the forum of the usual place of work provided for in Art. 24(1)…