For proceedings brought by a member of the air crew assigned to or employed by an airline, the "place where the employee habitually carries out his work" in Article 19(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 cannot be equated with the "home base" in Annex III to Regulation No 3922/91, as amended, for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the court seised. The "home base" is nevertheless a significant indicium for determining that place.

Where a company sues a person who acted as its director and manager in order to establish misconduct in the performance of those duties and obtain redress, Chapter II, Section 5 (Articles 18 to 21) of Regulation No 44/2001 precludes the application of Article 5(1) and (3) - provided that, in that capacity, the person for a certain period performed services for and under the direction of that company in return for remuneration, which is for the referring court to determine.

A jurisdiction agreement concluded before a dispute arises is covered in so far as it allows the employee to bring proceedings not only before the courts that would ordinarily have jurisdiction under Articles 18 and 19, but also before other courts, including courts outside the European Union.