EUPillar C-204/08 Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation (Fourth Chamber) [2009] ECR I-06073

Summary

This case on Art 5(1)(b) of Brussels I was referred to the CJEU in proceedings between Mr Rehder (residing in Germany) and Air Baltic (with its registered office in Latvia) on a flight cancellation from Germany to Lithuania. Rehder brought his compensation claim in Germany against Air Baltic under Reg 261/2004 regarding air passenger rights. Holding that the air transport services are provided at the aircraft’s place of departure, the court found that it had jurisdiction. The decision was overturned on appeal on the ground that air transport services are provided at the flight operator’s head office. During the final appeal on a point of law, the referring court asked the CJEU how to interpret the words ‘the place in a MS where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’ in the second indent of Art 5(1)(b) of Brussels I. The CJEU noted that the case raised the question of the applicability of Art 33 of the Montreal Convention in determining jurisdiction. Citing C-344/04 IATA, it observed that the right relied on under Reg 261/2004 is a passenger’s right to a standardised and lump-sum payment following the cancellation of a flight and it is independent of compensation for damage under Art 19 of the Montreal Convention. Since the right relied on in the present case was introduced under Reg 261/2004 alone, it found that the claim must be examined under Brussels I. It then observed that the main issue here was whether the interpretation given in C-386/05 Color Drack, in the case of sale of goods where there are several places of delivery within a single MS, should apply to the provision of services in more than one MS. In Color Drack, considering the objectives of proximity and predictability, the CJEU held that the rule in the first indent of Art 5(1)(b) is also applicable where there are several places of delivery of goods within a single MS, since one court must have jurisdiction to hear all the claims arising out of the contract. It also held that, in such a case, the place with the closest linking factor between the contract and the court having jurisdiction is that of the principal delivery, which must be determined on the basis of economic criteria, and that, if it is not possible to determine the place of the principal delivery, each of the places of delivery has a sufficiently close link of proximity to the material elements of the dispute, in which case the applicant may sue the defendant in the court for the place of delivery of his choice. The CJEU found those factors to be valid also for the provision of services contracts including the cases where such provision is not effected in one single MS. It observed that a differentiated approach would contradict with proximity and predictability. As regards the place where the main provision of services is to be carried out, it found that the place of the registered office or the principal place of establishment of the airline, the place where the contract for air transport is concluded, the place where the ticket is issued and places where the aircraft may stop over do not have the necessary close link to the contract. It stated that only ‘places of departure and arrival’ have a direct link to the services and those words must be understood as agreed in the carriage contract made with one sole airline which is the operating carrier. It thus held that a person claiming compensation on the basis of Reg 261/2004 may sue, as a matter of his choice, the defendant in the court in whose jurisdiction one of those places may be found under the second indent of Art 5(1)(b) of Brussels I. It added that the applicant retains the option to sue before the courts of the defendant’s domicile under Art 2(1) which in the present case is, pursuant to Art 60(1), the court with the jurisdictional district of which the air carrier has its registered office, central administration or principal place of business.