Gerechtshof Amsterdam; 2021-07-27; Netjets; 200.287.615
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:2322
Date: 2021-07-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82021NL0727(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:2322, Gerechtshof Amsterdam (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), 27 July 2021, 200.287.615/01
See also: ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:2321, the Court of Appeal, 27 July 2021, 200.287.612/01 and ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:2319, the Court of Appeal, 27 July 2021, 200.287.606/01
The Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 (2)
A company ‘NetJets’ is an airline that operates private flights. NetJets employs 589 pilots and flight crew members. A pilot (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) started working for NetJets on 28 November 2018. The plaintiff departed from Schiphol Airport either on a NetJets aircraft, of which he was pilot, or he joined a scheduled flight to another airport where he started his route on a NetJets aircraft. According to the Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Social Insurance Bank) form signed by the NetJets, the plaintiff’s home base was in Amsterdam.
The plaintiff received his flights’ schedule from NetJets employees in Portugal by e-mail and via an app on his iPad. By letter of 18 May 2020, NetJets terminated the plaintiff’s employment contract with immediate effect.
The plaintiff applied before the rechtbank Noord-Holland (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) and requested to be awarded fair compensation, transition payment, indemnification, severance payment together with costs of translation and the procedure at NetJets’s expense. The plaintiff relied on the jurisdiction of the Dutch court and the applicability of Dutch law because the Netherlands was the country from which he habitually worked.
NetJets argued that the Dutch court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim and reserved the right to submit a further (substantive) defence. According to NetJets, the plaintiff had no fixed workplace or fixed location from which he worked. The NetJets branch that engaged the plaintiff has its registered office in London. Therefore, the court for that place shall have jurisdiction.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the place from which the plaintiff habitually carried out his work could not be determined. Therefore, under Article 21(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), the place where the business which engaged the employee is situated (London) is decisive. The Court of First Instance declared a lack of its jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal annulled the first instance order and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance to decide the substance of the claim.
(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.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonization of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation.