Case C-242/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 27 April 2016 — José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso v Netjets Management Limited
Date: 2016-04-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air space, airport, civil aviation, crew, establishment, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, labour relations








C_2016251EN.01001601.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 27 April 2016 — José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso v Netjets Management Limited
(Case C-242/16)
(2016/C 251/17)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: José Rui Garrett Pontes Pedroso

Defendant: Netjets Management Limited

Questions referred







1.


In the factual context of the present case — the employee is a civil-aviation pilot and the activity carried out by him, under his employment contract, encompasses the whole of the European airspace — is the determination of the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ and/or the ‘last place where he did so’, within the meaning of Article 19(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, (1) adversely affected?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, that is, such a determination is not adversely affected:






(i)


Must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’, within the meaning of the abovementioned provision of Community law, be interpreted as being the place of the airport where the aircraft to be flown by the employee is stationed, where he begins the journey at the start of his duties?
And/or must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ be interpreted as corresponding to the place which the parties designate as the gateway airport, from which the employee was transported to the airport where the aircraft to be flown by him was stationed, and to which he later returned?
And/or must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ be the place of registration of the aircraft flown by him?
And/or must/may the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’ be the place from where the employee received instructions, communications and information about the flight operations, various aspects of his professional relationship with the defendant and the process which led to its termination?










(ii)


Must/may the ‘last place where he did so’, within the meaning of the abovementioned provision of Community law, be interpreted as being the place of the airport where the aircraft flown by the employee for the last time before his employment contract was terminated is stationed?
Or rather, must/may the ‘last place where he did so’ be interpreted as corresponding to the place which the parties designate as the gateway airport from which the employee was transported, for the last time before his employment contract was terminated, to the airport where the aircraft which he was due to fly was stationed, and to which he later returned?














3.


In the factual context of the present case, may the expression ‘business which engaged the employee’, within the meaning of Article 19(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, be interpreted as meaning ‘operations centre’ of the undertaking which is stated as the employer in the employment contract concluded with the employee, where the recruitment process for pilots is conducted (through the reception and processing of the respective candidacies) and where they receive initial and further training, even if the ‘operations centre’ referred to operates and is domiciled [through] another, legally independent undertaking, although both undertakings belong to the same economic group?










4.


In the factual context of the present case, may the expressions ‘central administration’ or ‘principal place of business’, within the meaning of Article 60(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, be interpreted as meaning ‘operations centre’ of the undertaking which is stated as the employer in the employment contract concluded with the employee, where all the aspects of its operations are controlled (from the control of the maintenance, flight operations and scheduling, to the operation, maintenance and piloting of the aircraft and ground and catering operations) and from where all instructions are issued to the pilots and they receive the initial and further training, human resource issues are managed and disciplinary meetings held or complaints handled, even if the ‘operations centre’ referred to operates and is domiciled [through] another, legally independent undertaking, although both undertakings belong to the same economic group?










5.


Having regard to the content of recital 13 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 which states that, in relation to insurance, consumer contracts and employment, the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules provide for, must the abovementioned Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 be interpreted in a more favourable manner for the employee?






(1)  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).