Jurisdiction clause in crew contracts overridden by ECJ interpretation of place of work

News / / Jurisdiction clause in crew contracts overridden by ECJ interpretation of place of work

Nogueria v Crewlink Limited and Moreno Osacar v Ryanair: Opinion of the European Court of Justice 27 April 2017

Due to the nature of work in the aviation sector employees will regularly work in multiple Member States. This creates complexity in respect of both choice of law and jurisdiction. In this recent Ryanair case the European Court of Justice was asked to rule on the interpretation of the concept of “the place where the employee habitually carries out his work” taking into account principles from both the Rome Regulation governing choice of law and the Brussels Regulation governing jurisdiction.


Crewlink recruited and trained cabin crew for Ryanair and then assigned the crew to Ryanair. Employment contracts were issued stating they were governed by Irish law and contained a choice of forum clause conferring jurisdiction on the Irish courts. The contracts also stated that the crew were deemed to provide their services in Ireland as they carried out their duties on board aircraft registered in Ireland.

The appellants’ contracts designated Charleroi as their home base and they had to live within a one hour commute. The appellants started and ended their day at Charleroi and received work instructions at Charleroi Airports by consulting Ryanair’s intranet site. Ryanair and Crewlink acknowledged they shared a crew room at Charleroi. If and when relevant, the appellants completed sickness forms and attended disciplinary meetings at Charleroi.

The appellants issued various employment claims in the Labour Court in Charleroi which determined that they did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims due to the express jurisdiction provisions in the employment contract.

Referring Court question

The appellants lodged appeals against the Labour Court’s decision. The referring court sought a decision on whether Article 19 (2) of Regulation No 44/2001 providing that an employer could be sued in another Member State “where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place he did so” should be construed on the same basis as the “home base” definition in Annex 111 to Regulation No 3922/91 which determines specific Member State legislation applicable to airline flight and cabin crew.

It should also be noted that EU law will take account of the need to ensure adequate protection for the weaker contracting party ie the worker, when interpreting employment contracts.

Advocate General Opinion

For the purposes of determining jurisdiction,the place where the employee habitually carries out his work cannot be assimilated to the “home base” definition in related aviation legislation but is to be construed as “the place where or from which the worker principally carries out his obligations vis a vis his employer”.

The national court will be required to pay particular attention to the following non exhaustive list when determining the place from which employees principally perform their obligations:

·  The place where the worker starts and ends his working days;

·  The place where the aircraft on board which he carries out his work are habitually based;

·  The place where he is made aware of the instructions communicated by his employer and where he organises his working day;

·  The place where he is contractually required to live;

·  The place where an office made available by the employer is situated;and

·  The place which he must attend when he is unfit for work or in the event of disciplinary problems.


The Advocate General’s opinion is not binding but as it is usually followed by the European Court, EU airlines should be mindful of the above clear guidance provided on the information the national courts will now use to identify the place of work. Employer control of which Member State court can determine employee issues has been removed and the “home base” is of limited relevance in determining jurisdiction issues. 

Related sectors:

Related news & insights

Insights / A flying start for the restructuring plan

06-01-2021 / Aviation & Travel

Alex Rogan looks at the maiden flight of the restructuring plan, highlighting the practical considerations for future cases.

A flying start for the restructuring plan

News / Incisive Law featured on the September issue of Asian Legal Business

18-09-2020 / Aviation & Travel

We are pleased to have been featured in the September issue of the Asian Legal Business Magazine.

Incisive Law featured on the September issue of Asian Legal Business

Insights / Counter-Drone Tech and the Challenges Thereof

27-08-2020 / Aviation & Travel

Drone detection technologies have been a blind spot for most governments across the world, and it gains significance in the current times considering that drones are now being used for commercial purposes.

Counter-Drone Tech and the Challenges Thereof

Insights / Drones – A New Frontier

13-08-2020 / Aviation & Travel

Unmanned Aircraft Systems / Vehicles (UAS UAV - or Drones, as they are commonly known) refer primarily to an unmanned aircraft which is guided by a remote control.

Drones – A New Frontier

News / Fixing of domestic airfares by Indian government: a mode to be replicated by other countries?

04-06-2020 / Aviation & Travel

Setting aside our aspersions on the manner in which domestic air travel was recommenced in India – by way of a tweet by the aviation minister catching the airlines unawares - the government’s decision to “control” the ticket prices, at least in the short term (3 months), is, I feel, a masterstroke.

Fixing of domestic airfares by Indian government: a mode to be replicated by other countries?

News / Update on the impact of the Coronavirus on the Aviation Industry

06-03-2020 / Aviation & Travel

Impact The COVID-19 outbreak has already had a severe impact on the aviation sector. “Air traffic has collapsed on key Asian routes and it is rippling throughout the air transport network globally, even between countries without major outbreaks of COVID-19.”[1] Flybe yesterday announced its collapse, in part it says due to the effect of coronavirus upon bookings. Airlines are experiencing a serious decline in demand: “one carrier has taken a 26% reduction in passenger numbers across its entire operation and a major carrier has reported booking to Italy collapsing to zero with customers demanding refunds. Many carriers are reporting 50% no-shows across several markets, future bookings are softening and carriers are reacting with flight cancellation, crew being given unpaid leave, freezing of pay increases and plans for aircraft to be grounded.”[2]

Update on the impact of the Coronavirus on the Aviation Industry

Quick links

The Legal 500 2021

“Very available and responsive to company developments in real time. Frank, clear advice – not just the ‘easy’ answer.”

The Legal 500 2022

“The solicitors who have handled our employment related issues are of the highest quality in terms of their specialist area of expertise, their professionalism and their approach to us as clients and as people. Special mention has to be made of Laura Livingstone. Laura became a key member of our team and felt more like a colleague than an external adviser – a colleague you could rely upon. Laura’s attention to detail, professionalism and responsiveness was second to none. Laura has come to know and understand us as individuals and this has enabled her to personalise her advice and even sometimes to preempt our future requirements. We have a very special and extremely valuable relationship with her and the firm.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“Ince are an excellent “fit” with our specific needs. The firm has consistently provided a broad range of personnel-related advice and in our experience that advice has been consistently of the very highest professional standard: it has been timely, comprehensive, accurate and at a cost which is commensurate with the budget of an organisation of our size.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“The firm has an unusually high degree of insight into the practices and policies required by the Gambling Commission as regards compliance with its own requirements and conditions – particularly Andrew Tait, derived from his previous in-house experience.”

- The Legal 500