Landesarbeitsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz; 2019-10-08; 6 Sa 97/19
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LAGRLP:2019:1008.6SA97.19.00
Date: 2019-10-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82019DE1008(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A pilot (hereinafter the ‘plaintiff’) filed an action against an air carrier domiciled in Ireland (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’), against the non-operative parent company of defendant 1 domiciled in Ireland (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’) and against a company domiciled in the Great Britain which brokered pilot services to air carriers (hereinafter ‘defendant 3’) making several claims against the defendants as joint and several debtors.
The plaintiff applied for the position as a pilot advertised by defendant 2. The plaintiff, who founded a limited liability company under the Irish law for this purpose, concluded a ‘Contract for Services’ as co-pilot with defendant 3 with defendant 2 being stated as the employer. Defendant 3 coordinated the training of the plaintiff regarding the plane Boeing 737-800. The home base of the plaintiff was in a city in Germany where defendant 1 operated four to six airplanes. The computer which the plaintiff used for reporting to duty was also located there.
The plaintiff pursued several claims which he believed he would have been entitled to if the defendant had made a contract of employment with him.
According to the plaintiff, the local and international jurisdiction appertained to the Amtsgericht Mainz (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) under Article 21(1)(i) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). As an employee, he was entitled to sue his employer in the courts for the place where or from where he habitually carried out his work.
The defendants applied for the action to be dismissed as the courts having jurisdiction were the Irish or the British courts. In relation to defendants 1 and 2, the German jurisdiction could not be applied due to the lack of the existence of employment relation. According to defendant 3, the plaintiff worked as a ‘director’ at an Irish private limited company and was therefore not an employee.
By the means of an interim judgment, the Court of First Instance found itself to hold the international jurisdiction. In addition, the Court of First Instance concluded to also hold the local jurisdiction as the home base (the airport) was located in its district. It further stated that the existence of an individual employment relationship could not be ruled out.
The appeals of the defendants lodged with the Landesarbeitsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) were found admissible but were not successful.
The Court of First Instance was found to have correctly assumed that the habitual place of work of the plaintiff was located in its district. Contrary to the opinion of the defendant, the plaintiff as a co-pilot was directly subordinated to the instructions and disciplinary measures of the captain at the home base. In addition, it was impossible for the plaintiff to fly elsewhere as he was obliged to observe the maximum flying hours.
An individual employment relation existed in this case.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of the defendants against the interim judgment made by the Court of First Instance.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.