In France deep rooted national pride and favouritism can override the economics. You need good relationships in such an especially challenging market. In passing and taking the long view I sometimes wonder if perhaps Ryanair should have supported Airbus rather than Boeing.

So you really only on this thread to show glee for a court making a decision to fine Ryanair ?

I am happily highlighting the hypocrisy of French state advocating a level playing field when this doesn't exist in France for other Europeans be it
Skiing
British ski hosts banned in France - Telegraph
Riding School
In the saddle - Living in France - Complete France
Mercedes
Court orders France to end ban on Mercedes - The Local
Beauty Pagents
French Senate votes to ban child beauty pageants | Fox News
Working at night
French Court Says Apple Store Staff Can't Work Late Nights

I'm inclined to agree with Racedo I'm really not sure that FR have done anything illegal here, whilst the whole employment set up for pilots (service providers) is bizarre and there is little doubt it has saved FR millions in social taxes and i suspect this ruling will be over turned on appeal. It may look like aggressive tax avoidance to some, but just like Starbucks & Amazon, very large multi national companies can pick and choose where to base their assets and where to pay their taxes.

Ultimately the authorities will have to go after the little fella's ie the groups of pilots set up as ltd companies, drawing a small salary and paying the resultant profit out in dividends, which attract a lower rate of tax and I believe are not liable for national or social insurances payments on such dividends.

They will investigate to see if these companies are genuine trading companies with proper accounts, board meeting and so on, or are just "shell" companies set up with the primary aim of reducing or avoiding tax and i think FR are far more vulnerable on that front, but of course they have Brookfield for a fire wall first.

Not a chance of them impounding Ryanair aircraft either

If the low cost carriers pull out they'll be complaining about the lack of business.
I'm sure Ryanair are not stuck for European destinations:=

Until last year, what Ryanair was doing was legal in Europe (even though the French law would beg to differ with this )

Since June last year their "non base" in Marseille has given the French the golden opportunity to nail them utilising a law that has now been adopted in Europe. The crux of the matter is whether French or European law will hold sway, as I am guessing the level of fines/back-payments dates back to pre Jun12.

Interesting linkie here
The airline base concept: European LCCs love to base aircraft and crew abroad, unlike others | CAPA - Centre for Aviation

Normally losing a court case means something was done that is considered wrong. But this is about Ryanair so it would be much less exiting without the complete opposite views.

-Reuters

Sorry
 

This and all upcoming court cases against Ryanair are based on the Convention of Rome which is very clearly written.
I know it's a bit of a boring read but it will make everything clear after you have understood its content so maybe we can talk about what is legal and what is not without lowering ourselves into a nationalistic debate which has nothing to do with EU treaties and conventions.
Have fun:
Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome Convention)

As usual , when UK meets France, there is a lot of emotions floating around.

At last, there is grounds on the european law since 2006, which does apply to all businesses, not only aviation related ones ( the most restrictive being the truck drivers one)
It is very simple : either the foreign company has an operating place in the country or not. For this case, MRS was a base, people ( crews) were having their rest at this base, they had lockers under their names, etc.. therefore, according to the law, the company should have complied with the obligations of this country, no more, no less. This was including to pay social security and so on in this said country. Since they failed and got caught they have a fine for having been not compliant.
Since January 2012, the european law is in effect, and after a transition period of 10 years, EVERY foreign company that has an establishment in France ( or any other foreign european state) have to comply with the same rule. A small change here, if you have a contract, and if this contract is amended for whatever reason during the transition period, you ( company + employee )start right away to pay these taxes.
Precision here also ; taxes have a different meaning depending the countries.
In France for exemple, you are not taxed at source, meaning that after the deduction from gross to net, the employee still have to pay the income tax.
Netjets case is somewhat different, but in its essence of EU-OPS now EASA, it is quite clear that the company has to nominate a base for every crew where the said crew will start his/her duty from. In the unique Netjets scheme of "gateways", this is where the crew leaves ( or where he/she has its center of interests read family). Proactivity made the rest and the call was made.
When the crew has no life, when IT ( there is no more individuals there, just a necessary burden) can be shuffled around europe every 4/6 months or so, it is more complicated to get a fault on the company, but at the end of the day it is the same law; and in this case it is found under all the new double taxation treaties, the taxes shall be paid where the passport of the individual is issued.
Now the talks can go to an endless path, but this is the law, like the yellow vest in UK....or CAP 731 ( not compliant with ICAO), or else.
EZ did its homework and is now number one airline out of Nice airport...

Enjoy your flights, because this is the only thing that you will have left at the end of the day; in an airline, airbone crews salaries are accounting for a very small percentage of the fare cost; do not shoot the messenger...

CL300

the taxes shall be paid where the passport of the individual is issued

? ? Could you expand on this , are you referring perhaps to social charges I guess, as income tax is usually due to where you call "home" I.E where your wife/kids/dog/cat reside, where your mail is sent to etc .

If you had no clearly defined base, I am guessing (like Net Jets ? ) the authorities would default to where aforesaid "home" was located rather than passport country (I for instance have lived outside of my country of nationality for 21 years, so would certainly not expect to pay there regardless of how mobile my "Base" was.)

on double taxation treaties, where everything else does not apply ( no employer, no center of life, no family, etc,) the last resort for taxation is not the nationality, it is the passport that the individual hold.

Social charges are due where your employment takes place ( except for short terms, where it is due at the headquarter's place)

So, let's say you have a german citizenship, employed by a portuguese company, but leaving in France with your family, and taking your rest there.
The said company will have to pay the social contributions in France, while retaining the right to have your income taxes withheld in Portugal. The double taxation treaty kicks in, and the if the taxes paid in Portugal are representative (read 2/3) of what would have been paid in France, no income tax is due in France, and your benefits ( retirement, loss of employment, medical coverage, etc.) are paid and taken where you live. ( which make sense) Nethertheless a tax return form has to be filled in, and will come back with a figure showing zero. If the state decides not to tax you in Portugal, you will have to pay full taxes in France.

Now you are the same german national, paid offshore, to an offshore account, with no family, leaving from hotels to hotels all around the world, not spending more than 25% of your time at any place on earth, employed with the typical contract found now everywhere (BVI, etc.) This payment is gross/net, whatever. You are liable for your income taxes somewhere, and this is Germany.

Do not quote me wrong, this is the law, it is very unlikely that someone from the tax office will catch you if you do not pay your taxes in Germany. But this is the bottom line, where everything starts from.

Sober lark
and what do you know about french economy ?
maybe you should know that our GDP is higher than UK ? and FAR higher than ireland ? (47th !! lol) :ugh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_GDP_(nominal)

so, before giving any lesson to another country, you should verify your informations and facts.
We do have laws here, and europeans states have still the right to govern on their own soil.
Do you want, we enforce you to drive on the right and spend Euros instead sterling ? i guess, no.

FR, is the cancer of our profession. If you want to be a slave and want the working condtiions always being cut, that's your problem. But don't be surprise that a captain LCC, will be paid 2500euros per month in the near futur.
At least we fight for a good reason. We do not offer our butt :=.

We work for a living, and not living for work.

Oui mais ... using those same statistics you'll see that Ireland's GDP per capita is 15% higher than France ... and Ireland exports more cheese (by gross weigh) than France. :}

The French economy is suffocating under a cross-party policy of protectionism and a suicidal attempt to maintain a status quo that has been obsolete for many decades. Even the latest "Made in France" campaign has been shown (by a Paris-based think tank) to be bad for the average French household budget because it does not create jobs.

Today's decision to give Air France/CityJet a gentle slap on the wrist for the same offence that Ryanair has been accused of just reinforces the belief that there's one rule for the natives, another for the outside world.

CelticRambler, can you elucidate/expand on that (although I am fairly sure Ryanairs lawyers won't have missed it ) because, if true, they have probably/possibly secured a massively reduced punishment via an appeal. ****ty-Jet have a lot more "history" in this respect than Ryanair,
but " turn the other way " worked just fine for them.

Greenlights, if only the rest of the world would slow down France would be fine. Enjoy the rest.

Air france has been convicted as well, because their sub-contractor, Cityjet, did not comply with the French law.

Air France condamnée pour travail dissimulé...comme Ryanair

To CelticRambler
 

"a suicidal attempt to maintain a status quo that has been obsolete for many decades"

For sure, it is obsolete to try to keep working and living conditions which seem to be (a bit) civilised. That's true that the "0 hours" contracts are the future of the human beings! However, I am told that even the UK government would now challenge this type of employment; strange.... The "0 hours" contracts do NOT create jobs neither; they just give the feeling of working!

"Today's decision to give Air France/CityJet a gentle slap on the wrist for the same offence that Ryanair has been accused of just reinforces the belief that there's one rule for the natives, another for the outside world."

Sorry but it is not the "same offence". It is the same nature of offence but it was for many less persons and it stopped relatively soon as some French contracts were given (as in easyJet also condemned for same reasons) whilst Ryanair continued not to meet the European legislation.

EU Rules only apply to any people appointed after the date the legislation becomes effective.

"The European Parliament passed legislation governing the payment of employee and employer social insurance costs in May 2012. The legislation governs the country in which employees and employers must pay social insurance costs. Before Jun-2012, Ryanair always paid social charges in either the UK or Ireland, the two countries under whose laws it draws up its labour contracts. Under the terms of legislation introduced in Jun-2012, employees and employers must pay social insurance in the country where the employee is based, although those employed prior to the introduction of the new legislation are exempt."

I can't find any reference, but I believe if you were previously employed but changed base, you became liable to the new legislation. . . something particularly applicable to Ryanair where a base change is an almost 100% dead cert if you wish a Command.

Correct, but as soon as a minor change (base change, upgrade, trainer, change of residence,...) occurs the new rules apply.
Grandfather rights will end anyhow in 2022.