Originally Posted by
Longhitter
ph-sbe:
It doesn't work that way in Dutch civil law. The appeals judge will and must decide based on the facts and circumstances at the time of the disputed base closure and redundancies, as brought forward by the conflicting parties. RYR already cited the base as 'underperforming' and other economic difficulties and this argument was thrown out by the judge. The MAX grounding popped up after the start of conflict and can not serve as an argument in any appeal.
The judgement which is being appealed says:
Ryanair stelt dat de operationele omvorming van Eindhoven van basis naar bestemming is gegrond op bedrijfseconomische redenen, maar die stelling van Ryanair is ongeloofwaardig
Which, loosely translated, says that the court does not buy RYR's argument that the decision to close EHV was based for economic reasons. During the appeals proceedings, RYR will have every opportunity to make that point again. Yes, the initial court threw out RYR's argument, but that does not mean that the appeals court will do the same. In civil court proceedings, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, in this case the air crew. RYR only has to establish that they closed EHV for economic reasons and the plaintiff needs to prove retaliation. My point is that RYR's arguments that they decided to close EHV for economic reasons have only gotten better. Does that mean they will win? Maybe not, as the courts in .nl generally are heavily favorited towards the employee. I'm just saying that this /could/ have an effect on the proceedings.