The parties argued on the validity of a termination of an employment contract. It was doubtful whether German courts had international jurisdiction to judge the issue. The plaintiff was a sailor engaged by the defendant, a company based in Luxembourg. The defendant’s ships were sailing with a German flag and on board of the ship the employees only spoke German. The ship was sailing from Duisburg (Germany) to Rotterdam (NL) and there were no shore leaves. The employment contract had been signed in Luxembourg.
The Labour Court denied the international jurisdiction of German courts. The Regional Labour Court contested this decision by declaring the international jurisdiction of German courts as given.
The Federal Labour Court held that the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ within the meaning of Art. 19 Brussels I was the place where the employee fulfilled his obligations or the place where he starts his work. Therefore the German courts had international jurisdiction: the place where the employee usually carried out his work was Duisburg (Germany). The court argued that the employees started their work in Germany and also terminated it there. The ship’s crew mainly consisted of German citizens and the language spoken on board was German. Employment performances weren’t ever carried out in Luxembourg.