Case number and/or case name
BAG, 24.9.2009 – 8 AZR 306/08
Summary
he plaintiff, a sailor on the ship ‘Superfast VIII’ brought an action for dismissal protection against two defendants. The defendant (2) was owner of the ship. The defendant (1) was a public limited company based in Liberia. That company continuously paid the salaries to the employees from the Greek branch and also terminated the employment contract without notice.
The labour court as well as the regional labour court stated the international jurisdiction of German courts.
The Federal Labour Court denied the international jurisdiction of German courts. It held that a conciliation hearing couldn’t be considered as an entering of an appearance within the meaning of Art. 24 Brussels I. Further, the place where the employee habitually carries out his work within the meaning of Art. 19 no. 2 (a) Brussels I had to be determined according to the nationality of the ship, therefore according to its flag. In the present case the international jurisdiction of German courts wasn’t given. The link to Germany wasn’t as significant as it would have been necessary to assume that the place of the contractual performance was there.
The ferry was sailing under the Greek flag between Rostock (Germany) and Finland. The employment contract was in English. The German employees regularly started their work from Germany. The court stated that in the present case there was no clear connection to Germany and therefore the main work place couldn’t be assumed in Germany. It actually seems to be insufficient for the support of that assumption that the employees solely started their work from Germany. The fulfilling of the contractual obligations in the present case has a connection to several jurisdictions. Therefore, the judgment is correct.