PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

Mr. D. v. Ryanair Ltd - 166417/A - Trib. trav. Charleroi, 21 March 2005

Details of the court

Belgium, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

20 March 2005

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The plaintiff was hired as a “customer services agent – inflight” on 19 April 2001, with a twelve-month trial period. At first he worked from the airport in Dublin, and from 16 November 2001 onwards he worked at the airport of Gosselies (Charleroi, Belgium). He received compensation equal to 7 days of remuneration. The plaintiff then sued the defendant to obtain a higher severance package and the reimbursement of his expenses, for a total amount of 6,291.79 EUR. Since the defendant is a company which has its registered office in Ireland (cf. Art. 60(2) Brussels I), the Court needs to determine its jurisdiction on the basis of the Brussels I Regulation, in particular Articles 18-20. In its construction, the ECJ has always been guided by the need to protect the weaker party. In Mulox IBC (C-125/92), the ECJ said that proper protection of that kind is best assured if disputes relating to a contract of employment fall within the jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the employee discharges his obligations towards his employer. That is the place where it is least expensive for the employee to commence, or defend himself against, court proceedings. On several occasions, the ECJ has been asked to interpret the notion of “place where the employee habitually carries out his work”, e.g. in Mulox IBC (C-125/92), Rutten (C-383/95) and Weber (C-37/00). In the absence of a choice of court agreement agreed on by the parties (cf. Art. 21 and 23(5) Brussels I), the Court will have to determine its jurisdiction by finding out where the employee habitually and effectively carried out his work, depending on the factual elements of the case. These elements are the following: - The defendant is a company governed by Irish law, with its corporate seat in Dublin, in the Republic of Ireland. - The documents submitted by the parties do not allow the Court to determine whether the defendant has a real “place of business” in Charleroi, or merely a “trading post”. - The plaintiff was hired as a “customer services agent – inflight”. - The employment contract provides that the planes are registered in Ireland, so that the employee’s work his situated in Ireland even if he will carry out his work from the airport in Charleroi. - The tasks carried out by the plaintiff comprise the security, welcome and assistance of passengers, on-board duty-free sales, cleaning the inside of the plane, and any other task the company may confide him with. The plaintiff could also be asked to keep himself available to replace other members of staff, either at the airport or at his home. - The plaintiff submits his daily time sheets, but these do not show whether this time was spent on the ground or on board. - The plaintiff is domiciled in Belgium and has always carried out his missions from his domicile or from the airport of Charleroi. - The plaintiff was handed his flight schedules from the staff desk at the airport of Charleroi. - He received his training as “cabin crew member” at the Wallonie Aerotraining Network in Charleroi. The Court decides that the deciding element is from where the plaintiff carried out his work, i.e. from the airport of Charleroi (either on watch or on duty). This interpretation is guided by the need to protect the weaker party from a social point of view, i.e. the employee. The Belgian courts and the Labour Court of Charleroi in particular have jurisdiction.