PIL instrument(s)
Brussels I
Case number and/or case name
BAG, 20.12.2012 – 2 AZR 481/11
Details of the court
Germany, Third Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 1
Paragraph 1
Article 5
Paragraph 5
Article 18
Paragraph 1
Article 19
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph a
Article 21
Paragraph 2
Article 23
Paragraph 5
Article 60
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph c
Date of the judgement
09 December 2012
Appeal history
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
The plaintiff has been employed by the defendant as a flight captain for several years. The defendant terminated the employment contract without notice. It was doubtful whether German courts had international jurisdiction concerning the claim for dismissal protection. The court decided that the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ in Art. 19 (2) (a) Brussels I meant the place of a ‘crew base’ set up by the employer if the employee carried out the preparation and follow-up of the flights, if he received instructions there and if he performed and terminated the flights there. In Mulox (C-125/92) the CJEU stated that the central place of working was the office and place where one organizes his work and where one returns to after having done his work [paragraph 25, 26 of the judgment]. In the present case the flight captain always returned to the base in order to organize and coordinate the flights. The judgment is correct.

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team