This preliminary ruling concerned the joint cases of C-168/16 and C-169/16. Both cases concerned the condition of performance and termination of individual contracts of employment for air crew and the international jurisdiction of the Belgian Courts to determine such disputes.

All the plaintiffs involved had entered contracts of employment which were drafted in English, specified that their work relationship was subject to Irish law and that the Irish Courts had jurisdiction over all disputes relating to these contracts. All of the working relationships involved had ended as a result of resignation or dismissal and the plaintiffs had all brought proceedings, before the Charleroi Labour Court in Belgium, to obtain compensation for same.

Under EU Law the jurisdiction of the Court seised is greatly influenced by the Member State which the weaker party to the contractual relationship has greatest connection. The referring Court accordingly asked whether the concept of 'place where employee habitually carries out his work' can be equated to 'home base' to determine same.

The Chamber held that the concept of 'place where employee habitually carries out his work' must be interpreted as referring to the place where, or from which, the employee performs the essential part of his duties vis-a-vis his employer. However, they held that this concept cannot be equated with that of 'home base', but indicated that 'home base' is a significant indicium in determining the place where an employee habitually carries out his work.

Accordingly, the Chamber highlighted the need to use a circumstantial method of identifying the relevant place. Finally, they noted that the nationality of an aircraft cannot be equated with the place where an employee habitually carries out his work.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30d6ac982939dfbf462a94ffe0ba8c86d301.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyMbhz0?text=&docid=194429&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1457223