Jurisdictional Competence for Aircrew: The Home Base in Question

Imagine for a moment: you own an apartment in Saint-Florent, Haute-Corse, which you let furnished to an airline pilot. He is employed by a low-cost airline based abroad and flies all over Europe. One day, he is dismissed and wants to challenge his dismissal. But before which court? That of Bastia, where he resides? That of Paris, the company's registered office? Or that of Dublin, the company's official base? The question is crucial, as it determines the cost and feasibility of the proceedings. This is exactly the type of problem that the Cour de cassation ruled on on 9 September 2020.

This decision, delivered under number 18-22.971, falls within the framework of the European Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012), which lays down the rules of judicial jurisdiction within the European Union. For workers, this regulation offers protection: they may sue their employer before the court of the place where they habitually perform their work. But for aircrew (pilots, cabin crew), who work in the sky, the concept of "habitual place" is vague. The Cour de cassation provides valuable clarifications here.

In short, this decision does not merely restate the principles: it adapts them to the reality of air transport. And it has direct consequences for workers, but also for landlord-owners who let to aircrew, or for the companies that employ them. Analysis.

The facts: a story as common as any

Mr A., a commercial aircrew member (PNC), i.e. a flight attendant, worked for an Irish airline, Ryanair. Like many of his colleagues, he was based at Marseille Provence airport, but his contract was governed by Irish law. In the event of a dispute, the company considered that only the Irish court had jurisdiction. But Mr A. considered that his work was mainly carried out from France.

Why? Because it was in Marseille that he received his flight instructions, collected the necessary equipment (catering, etc.), and returned after each mission. His home was in Saint-Florent, near Bastia, and he travelled to Marseille at the beginning of the week. The company, for its part, argued that the official base (home base) was Dublin, and that any dispute should be brought there.

The dispute went to appeal: the Paris Court of Appeal, by a judgment of 17 May 2018, ruled in favour of Mr A., holding that the habitual place of work was in France. The company appealed to the Cour de cassation, challenging this analysis. The Cour de cassation therefore had to decide: is the home base decisive or not?

The reasoning of the court — analysed

The Cour de cassation relies on Article 21(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which provides that an employer may be sued "in the courts for the place where or from where the worker habitually carries out his work". But how to determine this place for aircrew?

The court follows the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, judgment in Nogueira e.a. / Crewlink Ltd, 14 September 2017) and its own previous case-law (Soc., 28 February 2018, No. 16-12.754). It sets out several indicators: it is necessary to look at the place from which the worker performs his transport duties, the place to which he returns after his duties, where he receives instructions, where he organises his work, and where the work tools are located.

However, note: the concept of "home base" (the official place indicated in the contract) is an important element, but not exclusive. It is not automatically the habitual place of work. If the facts show that the worker actually performs the essential part of his activity elsewhere, that place takes precedence. In other words, the home base is a strong indicator, but it can be contradicted by concrete evidence.

In Mr A.'s case, the Court of Appeal had noted that the essential part of his missions took place from Marseille: instructions, catering, return after mission. The Cour de cassation validates this reasoning. It quashes the appeal judgment on another point (not specified in the summary), but confirms the principle: the home base is not the only criterion.

What this changes for you — concretely

This decision has practical implications for several categories of people.

For salaried aircrew (pilots, flight attendants, stewards): if you work for a foreign company but actually carry out your activity from France (you have your operational base there, you receive your instructions there, you return there after each flight), you can bring a claim before the French employment tribunal (conseil de prud'hommes) in the event of a dispute. No more obligation to go to court abroad, with the costs and language difficulties. Concrete example: a flight attendant based in Bastia, who works for a Maltese company but mainly flies from Bastia Poretta airport, could sue his employer before the Bastia court.

For landlord-owners: you are renting a property in Saint-Florent to an airline pilot? Know that he has every interest in being able to prove that his habitual place of work is in France, because this gives him easier access to justice. If you are involved in a rental dispute with him, the competent court will be that of his home (Bastia) if the property is his main residence. But for his employment dispute, the criterion is different. As a landlord, you are not directly concerned, but this information may influence your choice of tenant or the drafting of the lease.

For employers (airlines): this decision reminds you that the contractual home base is not enough to establish jurisdiction. If you want to avoid being sued before French courts, you must ensure that your aircrew do not have an effective operational base in France. But in practice, this can be difficult to contest if the employee resides in France and performs the essential part of his activity there.

Four tips to avoid this type of dispute

• For employees: keep all evidence of your actual place of work. Keep your flight schedules, your employer's emails with instructions, travel documents, etc. In the event of a dispute, these documents will demonstrate that your work is carried out from a specific place.
• For employers: draft clear contracts on the home base, but know that this is not enough. If you want to limit the risk of litigation in France, ensure that the actual place of performance of the work corresponds to the contractual base. For example, if the base is Dublin, the employee must actually start and finish his missions there, receive his instructions there, etc.
• For landlord-owners: if you let to an aircrew member, check his employer and the location of his activity. This may have an impact on the stability of your tenant (risk of transfer, dismissal). If the employment dispute takes place abroad, your tenant may face financial difficulties and payment problems.
• In the event of a dispute, do not neglect the question of territorial jurisdiction. An error as to the court may result in the dismissal of your action or additional costs. Consult a lawyer specialising in employment law or property law to determine the competent court.

Further reading: related case law and developments

This decision is part of a consistent line of the CJEU and the Cour de cassation. The 2017 Nogueira judgment had already established the principle that the home base is only one indicator. The Cour de cassation followed this in 2018 (appeal No. 16-12.754). The present judgment confirms this approach.

What few people know is that the CJEU also specified that the habitual place of work can be determined by a bundle of indicators, and not by a single criterion (CJEU, 27 February 2002, Herbert Weber, Case C-37/00). The trend is therefore towards a concrete and pragmatic assessment, on a case-by-case basis.

For the future, it can be expected that French courts will continue to protect employees by offering them an accessible forum. Low-cost airlines, which multiply operational bases in different countries, will have to be vigilant: if they want to avoid being sued before French employment tribunals, they will have to prove that their employees have no real link with France.

In practice: what to do

FAQ

Can I bring a claim before the Bastia employment tribunal if I am a flight attendant based in Marseille, but my contract mentions Dublin? Yes, if you demonstrate that you habitually perform your work from Marseille (or Bastia). You will need to provide evidence: your schedules, your emails, etc.

What if my employer challenges the jurisdiction of the French court? You can raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction. The court will verify whether the criteria of Article 21 are met. If you have doubts, consult a lawyer.

What are the time limits for taking action? For a dismissal, you have one year from the notification of the termination to bring a claim before the employment tribunal. For other disputes (salary, etc.), the time limit is three years.

What is the cost of proceedings? Bringing a claim before the employment tribunal is free. But if you have to travel and hire a lawyer, costs may vary. A 30-minute consultation with a lawyer typically costs between €45 and €100.

Can I be assisted by a trade union? Yes, trade unions can advise you and sometimes represent you. But for questions of international jurisdiction, a specialised lawyer is often recommended.

Are you in a similar situation? A first 30-minute consultation with Maître Zakine (€45) can save you months of proceedings — and often much more. Book an appointment →