Sandra Nogueira and Others v Crewlink Ireland Ltd and Miguel José Moreno Osacar v Ryanair Designated Activity Company.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Date: 14 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

14 September 2017 ( *1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 19(2)(a) — Concept of ‘place in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ — Airline sector — Airline crew — Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 — Concept of ‘home base’)

In Joined Cases C‑168/16 and C‑169/16,

REQUESTS for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the cour du travail de Mons (Mons Higher Labour Court, Belgium), made by decisions of 18 March 2016, received at the Court on 25 March 2016, in the proceedings

Sandra Nogueira,

Victor Perez-Ortega,

Virginie Mauguit,

Maria Sanchez-Odogherty,

José Sanchez-Navarro

v

Crewlink Ireland Ltd (C‑168/16),

and

Miguel José Moreno Osacar

v

Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (C‑169/16),

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of M. Ilešič, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, President of the Court, acting as a Judge of the Second Chamber, A. Rosas, C. Toader (Rapporteur) and E. Jarašiūnas, Judges,

Advocate General: H. Saugmandsgaard Øe,

Registrar: I. Illéssy, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 2 February 2017,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– S. Nogueira, V. Perez-Ortega, V. Mauguit, M. Sanchez-Odogherty and J. Sanchez-Navarro and of M.J. Moreno Osacar, by S. Gilson and F. Lambinet, avocats,

– Crewlink Ireland Ltd, by S. Corbanie, advocaat, and F. Harmel, avocat,

– Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd, by S. Corbanie, advocaat, F. Harmel and E. Vahida, avocats, and by G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, dikirigos,

– the Belgian Government, by C. Pochet, M. Jacobs and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents,

– Ireland, by A. Joyce, acting as Agent, and by S. Kingston, Barrister,

– the French Government, by D. Colas, D. Segoin and C. David, acting as Agents,

– the Netherlands Government, by M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents,

– the Swedish Government, initially by C. Meyer-Seitz, A. Falk, U. Persson and N. Otte Widgren, acting as Agents, and subsequently by C. Meyer-Seitz and A. Falk, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by M. Wilderspin, M. Heller and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 27 April 2017,

gives the following

Judgment

1 The requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Article 19(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1; ‘the Brussels I Regulation’).

2 These requests have been made in the context of two disputes between, in Case C‑168/16, Ms Sandra Nogueira, Mr Victor Perez-Ortega, Ms Virginie Mauguit, Ms Maria Sanchez-Odogherty and Mr José Sanchez-Navarro (‘Ms Nogueira and Others’) and Crewlink Ireland Ltd (‘Crewlink’) and, in Case C‑169/16, Mr Miguel José Moreno Osacar and Ryanair Designated Activity Company, formerly Ryanair Ltd (‘Ryanair’), concerning the conditions of performance and termination of the individual contracts of employment of Ms Nogueira and Others and Mr Moreno Osacar as well as the international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts to determine these disputes.

Legal context

International law

3 The Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago (United States) on 7 December 1944 (‘the Chicago Convention’), was ratified by all the Member States of the European Union; however the European Union is not itself a party to that convention.

4 Article 17 of that convention provides: ‘Aircrafts have the nationality of the State in which they are registered.’

EU law

5 Recitals 13 and 19 of the Brussels I Regulation state: ‘(13) In relation to insurance, consumer and employment contracts, the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provide for. … (19) Continuity between the Convention [of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the successive conventions relating to the accession of new Member States to that convention] and this Regulation should be ensured, and transitional provisions should be laid down to that end. The same need for continuity applies as regards the interpretation of [that] … convention … and the [first protocol on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 1968, in its revised and amended version (OJ 1998 C 27, p. 28)] should remain applicable also to cases already pending when this Regulation enters into force.’

6 Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation, which comprises Articles 18 to 21 thereof, sets out the rules of jurisdiction over disputes concerning individual contracts of employment.

7 Article 18(1) of that regulation provides: ‘In matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 4 and point 5 of Article 5.’

8 Article 19 of that regulation provides: ‘An employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued: 1. in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled, or 2. in another Member State: (a) in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so, or (b) if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated.’

9 Article 21 of the Brussels I Regulation is worded as follows: ‘The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement on jurisdiction: 1. which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or 2 which allows the employee to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section.’

10 The preamble of the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 226, p. 1) (‘the Rome Convention’) stipulates: ‘The High Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Anxious to continue in the field of private international law the work of unification of law which has already been done within the Community, in particular in the field of jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments, Wishing to establish uniform rules concerning the law applicable to contractual obligations, Have agreed …’

11 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (OJ 1991 L 373, p. 4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1899/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 (OJ 2006 L 377, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 3922/91’), concerns, as laid down in Article 1 thereof, ‘the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation safety related to the operation and maintenance of aircraft and persons and organisations involved in such tasks’.

12 That regulation contained, before its repeal by Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (OJ 2008 L 79, p. 1), an Annex III, subpart Q of which was entitled ‘Flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements’. Air operation (OPS) 1.1090, point 3.1, which was included in that subpart, provided: ‘An operator shall nominate a home base for each crew member.’

13 That subpart also included OPS 1.1095 which, in point 1.7, defined the concept of ‘home base’ as ‘the location nominated by the operator to the crew member from where the crew member normally starts and ends a duty period or a series of duty periods and where, under normal conditions, the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the crew member concerned’.

14 In addition, OPS 1.1110, which also appeared in Annex III, subpart Q, of Regulation No 3922/91, entitled ‘Rest’, read as follows: ‘1. Minimum rest 1.1. The minimum rest which must be provided before undertaking a flight duty period starting at home base shall be at least as long as the preceding duty period or 12 hours whichever is the greater; 1.2. The minimum rest which must be provided before undertaking a flight duty period starting away from home base shall be at least as long as the preceding duty period or 10 hours whichever is the greater; when on minimum rest away from home base, the operator must allow for an eight hour sleep opportunity taking due account of travelling and other physiological needs. …’

15 In the field of social security, the concept of ‘home base’ is also mentioned in recital 18b of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security...