Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 15 December 1988

1 Original language: Italian.

2 OJ L 266, 9 10.1080, p 1.

3 OJ L 319, 25.11 1988, p 9.

4 Such a conclusion is, in my view, in no way contradicted by lhe hope, which is, 10 say the least, surprising, expressed in the declaration by the representatives of the governments of the States signatories to the Lugano Convention which are members of the European Communities, which states that they consider as appropriate that the Court of Justice of the European Communities, when interpreting the Brussels Convention, pay due account to the rulings contained in the case-law of the Lugano Convention Whatever the scope of such a declaration it certainly cannot apply lo a case such as the present which falls within tne rules of the Brussels Convention whose substantive provisions are different from those of the Lugano Convention

5 On the subject of this paradox but in relation to other matters, it must be pointed out that the Jenard/Möller Report on the Lugano Convention justifies in this manner (paragraph 66) the provisions of Article 5(1) in relation to the performance of contracts of employment which some governments in this case would like to see extended to the solution of the present case: Le concept sous-jacent à cette disposition est la protection de l'employé, qui, du point de vue économique et social, est considéré comme l'élément le plus faible.