62003CO0555_EN
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
In Case C-555/03,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 68 EC by the Tribunal du travail de Chareleroi (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Magali Warbecq
and
Ryanair Ltd,
on the interpretation 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 COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
K. Schiemann and E. Juhász,
Advocate General: A. Tizzano,
Registrar: R. Grass,
after hearing the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order
Grounds
1. By judgment of 15 December 2003, received at the Court on 24 December 2003, the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi (Chareleroi Labour Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 68 EC two questions on the interpretation 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).
2. Those questions were raised in proceedings between Ms Warbecq, a Belgian national, and the Irish company Ryanair Ltd (hereinafter ‘Ryanair’), established in Dublin (Ireland).
Legal framework
3. Article 61 EC states:
‘In order to establish progressively an area of freedom, security and justice, the Council shall adopt:
…
(c) measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters as provided for in Article 65;
…’
4. Article 19 of Regulation No 44/2001 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, …
…’
Main proceedings and questions referred to the Court
5. By contract of employment signed in Dublin on 19 April 2001, Ms Warbecq was engaged by Ryanair as a ‘customer services agent-inflight’.
6. Ryanair terminated the contract on 10 April 2002 and paid Ms Warbecq a severance allowance equivalent to seven days’ remuneration.
7. On a date not specified in the judgment making the reference, Ms Warbecq brought proceedings against Ryanair before the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi. The application seeks an order for payment by the defendant in the main proceedings of certain sums by way of end-of-contract holiday allowance, additional severance pay and damages.
8. The claimant in the main proceedings maintains that under Article 19 of Regulation No 44/2201 she had the choice of bringing proceedings against her employer in the courts of the place where the latter was domiciled and in the courts for the place where she habitually carried out her work, in this case Charleroi Airport.
9. Ryanair contends that the Belgian courts have no jurisdiction to hear the action brought by Ms Warbecq.
10. Taking the view that the resolution of the dispute before it required an interpretation of Article 19 of Regulation No 44/2001, the Tribunal du travail decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
‘1. For the purposes of Article 19(2) of Council Regulation No 44/2001 …, what are the relevant criteria for determining the Contracting State on the territory of which an employee habitually carries out his work, when that employee is employed as a member of the air crew of an undertaking engaged in international air passenger transport?
2. Which place should be regarded as the place where or from which such an employee in fact performs most of his duties for his employer when the duties under the contract of employment are to be performed partly on the ground (airport) of a Contracting State and partly on an aircraft which has the nationality of another Contracting State which also recruited the employee?’
Jurisdiction of the Court
11. Under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible, the Court may, by reasoned order, after hearing the Advocate General and without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action.
12. Article 68(1) EC provides that ‘Article 234 shall apply to this Title [IV concerning “Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons”] under the following circumstances and conditions: where a question on the interpretation … of acts of the institutions of the Community based on this Title is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon’.
13. Regulation No 44/2001 was adopted on the basis of Article 61(c) EC, which appears in Part Three, Title IV of the EC Treaty. In those circumstances, only a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law may request the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of that regulation.
14. It is not disputed in the present case that decisions taken by the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi in proceedings such as the main proceedings are amenable to appeal under national law.
15. Therefore, as the reference to the Court has not been made by a court or tribunal as referred to in Article 68 EC, the Court has no jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Regulation No 44/2001.
16. Consequently, Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure must be applied and it must be held that the Court clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the questions referred by the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi.
Decision on costs
Costs
17. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi (Belgium) by judgment of 15 December 2003.