LAarbG Berlin-Brandenburg; 2018-06-12; 7 SHa 533/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LAGBEBB:2018:0612.7SHA533.18.00
Date: 2018-06-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE0612(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Arbeitsgericht Berlin (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) concerns the international jurisdiction and the determination of a court having local jurisdiction.
The plaintiff, residing in Dresden, worked since 17 March 2003 with the debtor –  an airline domiciled in Berlin – as a flight attendant. Since 20 December 2017, the plaintiff HAD been on a parental leave. After the debtor was declared insolvent and defendant 1 became the insolvency administrator of the assets of the debtor, defendant 1 terminated the employment relationship with the plaintiff. On 19 February 2018, the defendant filed an action with the Court of First Instance against defendant 1. At the same time, the plaintiff sought that the court establish the existence of the employment relationship with defendants 2 to 7 claiming that her employment passed to these defendants due to their acquisition of the debtor’s operations through the takeover of the take off and landing rights of its planes. Defendants 2 to 7 were several different airlines domiciled in Vienna, Düsseldorf, Cologne, London and Geneva.
The dispute regarded the question whether the notice of termination for operational reasons was effective and whether the employment relationship of the plaintiff passed to defendants 2 to 7 due to the transfer of operations.
The international jurisdiction against the defendant follows from Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The provision of this Article, which may under Article 20(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) also be applied to matters relating to individual contracts of employment, stipulates that a person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued, where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
The close connection between the actions is given. The plaintiff made claims against defendants 2 to 7 together jointly with defendant 1 stating that they had acquired the operations of her employer. For the assumption of the joinder of parties (Streitgenossenschaft), it is sufficient if the plaintiff claims within proceedings regarding the protection against unfair dismissal the invalidity of termination against one of the defendants and seeks the declaration of the existence of the employment relationship with another defendant.
The Court of First Instance was found to be the court having jurisdiction. The general local jurisdiction for the action against defendant 1 was in Berlin. This place was also decisive when determining the domicile under Article 8 Brussels I Regulation (recast). The debtor, whose employment agreement with the plaintiff gave rise to the dispute with the plaintiff and the operations of which passed according to the plaintiff to defendants 2 to 7, was domiciled in Berlin.
(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.