HJ v Crédit agricole Corporate & Investment Bank
Case C‑350/24
28 May 2026
Share
On 19 May 2026, the CJEU gave judgment addressing the effect of the Withdrawal Agreement on the applicability of EU law to a legal relationship arising from a contract governed by UK law which was concluded before the end of the transition period.
HJ was employed by Crédit agricole Corporate & Investment Bank under a contract of employment governed by UK law. In 2013, she brought proceedings in France alleging sex discrimination. The French Court of Appeal ruled against HJ in May 2021, holding that she had not demonstrated the existence of discrimination within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, which had transposed EU Directive 2006/54 into UK law.
HJ appealed to the Court of Cassation in France, arguing that the French Court of Appeal had failed to interpret the contract consistently with the requirements of EU law. The Court of Cassation referred the matter to the CJEU, seeking guidance on the applicability of EU law to the contractual relationship.
The Grand Chamber ruled that the Withdrawal Agreement did not displace the applicability of EU law to the legal relationship. Where a court of a Member State interprets and applies the law of another Member State which implements an EU directive, it is required to ensure that national law is interpreted in conformity with EU law.
Jason Pobjoy KC and Ava Mayer appeared on behalf of the United Kingdom in the CJEU.
A copy of the Grand Chamber’s judgment is available here.
