1. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second chamber) 14 September 2017 (RYANAIR AND CREWLINK CASE)
In Joined Cases C‑168/16 and C‑169/16,
REQUESTS for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the cour du travail de Mons (Mons Higher Labour Court, Belgium), made by decisions of 18 March 2016, received at the Court on 25 March 2016

2. THE FACT
On 21 April 2008, Mr Moreno Osacar concluded, in Spain, a contract of employment with Ryanair, an airline having its head office in Ireland.
Under that contract, his duties included ‘passenger safety, care, assistance and control, boarding and ground assistance … on-board sales; cleaning of the interior of the aircraft, safety checks and all the relevant tasks which can be … entrusted by the company’.
According to the contract, drafted in English, the Irish courts had jurisdiction over possible disputes which may emerge between the parties regarding the performance and termination of that contract, and the legislation of that Member State governed the work relationship between them. That contract also stipulated that Mr Moreno Osacar’s work, as cabin crew, was regarded as being carried out in Ireland given that his duties were carried out on board aircraft, registered in that Member State and belonging to that airline.
Furthermore, Mr Moreno Osacar’s contract of employment nominated Charleroi airport (Belgium) as ‘home base’, and required that he live within an hour’s journey of the base he was assigned to, this being the reason why he moved to Belgium.
On 1 April 2009, Mr Moreno Osacar was promoted to ‘supervisor’. He resigned on 16 June 2011.

3. THE FACT
Ms Nogueira and others, of Portuguese, Spanish or Belgian nationality, concluded, in the course of 2009 and 2010, contracts of employment with Crewlink, a legal person established in Ireland.
Each of their contracts of employment provided that those workers would be employed by Crewlink and seconded as cabin crew with Ryanair, for duties comparable to those of Mr Moreno Osacar.
Drafted in English, those contracts of employment also specified that their work relationship was subject to Irish law and that the courts of that Member State had jurisdiction over all disputes relating to the performance or termination of those contracts. Similarly, those contracts stated that their remuneration would be paid into an Irish bank account.
The work relationships ended as a result of resignation or dismissal in the course of 2011.

4. Applicable law
Regulation n° 44/2001 (EC) (Reg. Brussels I), art. 19: << An employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued:
in the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled, or
in another Member State:
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, or
if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated.’>>

5. Article 21 of the Brussels I Regulation is worded as follows: ‘The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement on jurisdiction:
which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or
which allows the employee to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section.’

6. Applicable law Reg. 3922/91, Annex III:
‘An operator shall nominate a home base for each crew member.’
‘home base’ as ‘the location nominated by the operator to the crew member from where the crew member normally starts and ends a duty period or a series of duty periods and where, under normal conditions, the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the crew member concerned’.

7. Applicable law
Reg. 883/2004 (not applicable at the case), art. 11, par. 5: «An activity as a flight crew or cabin crew member performing air passenger or freight services shall be deemed to be an activity pursued in the Member State where the home base, as defined in Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91, is located.’”
Convention of Chicago: «Aircrafts have the nationality of the State in which they are registered.

8. Preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice:
The concept of the “place where the employee habitually carries out his work” referred to in Article 19(2) of the Brussels I Regulation can be interpreted as being comparable to that of “home base”, defined in Annex III to Regulation N° 3922/91, for the purpose of determining the Contracting State (and thus the jurisdiction)?

9. Opinion of advocate general
Convention of Brussels, art 5: «A person domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued:
in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question; in matters relating to individual contracts of employment, this place is that where the employee habitually carries out his work, or if the employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country, the employer may also be sued in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee was or is now situated;
The Court held that, where the work entrusted to the employee is performed on the territory of more than one Contracting State, that provision must be interpreted as designating ‘the place where or from which the employee principally discharges his obligations towards his employer’

10. Rome Convention, art. 6: “a contract of employment shallbe governed:
(a) by the law of the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the
contract, even if he is temporarily employed in another country; or
(b) if the employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country, by the law of the country in which the place of business through which he was engaged is situated; unless it appears from the circumstances as a whole that the contract is more closely connected with another country, in which case the contract shall be governed by the law of that country.

11. First Conclusion of Advocate General
When the work is carried out on the territory of more than one Member State, the criterion established in Article 19(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that it designates the ‘place where or from which’ the employee principally performs his obligations vis-à-vis his employer.

12. The relevant indicia for the purposes of identifying the place ‘from which’ the worker principally carries out his obligations in the circumstances of the main proceedings
The appellants started and ended their working day at Charleroi Airport.
the appellants received the instructions relating to their tasks and organised their work at Charleroi Airport, by consulting their employers’ intranet.
the aircraft operated by Ryanair were based at Charleroi.
The workers have their residence in the place where they work (see also the contractual clause)
Ryanair and Crewlink jointly had a ‘crew room’ at Charleroi Airport
the appellants were required to attend Charleroi Airport if they were unfit for work and in the event of disciplinary problems.
The ‘home base’ as an indirectly relevant indicium

13. The decision of the Court of Justice:
the Brussels I Regulation does not refer to Regulation No 3922/91, nor does it have the same objectives, the latter regulation aiming to harmonise technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation safety.
the concept of ‘place where, or from which, the employee habitually performs his work’ cannot be equated with any concept referred to in another act of EU law.
The concept of ‘home base’ constitutes nevertheless a significant indicium for the purposes of determining the ‘place where the employee habitually carries out his work’.