EUPillar LG Stuttgart, 10.12.2014

Summary

The parties argued about damage claims pursuant to Art. 7 (1) (b) of the Regulation on air passenger rights (261/2004). The claimant flew from Stuttgart to Paris and from Paris to Helsinki. The second flight was the one being matter of the dispute because it was delayed. The defendant was a Finnish carrier. The claimant’s contractual partner for the whole flight was Air France. The claimant had been told that the second section of the flight might be performed by the defendant. The claimant asserted that German courts were internationally competent because the flight had started in Stuttgart (Germa-ny). The court had to examine whether the place of performance within the meaning of Art. 5 no. 1 (b) second indent Brussels I was Germany. The court held that German courts didn’t have international jurisdiction pursuant to Brussels I because the place of the provision of services wasn’t Stuttgart. The assert-ed claims as well as the relation between the claimant and the Finnish carrier solely concerned the second part of the flight route. This route was only connected to France (Paris) and Finland (Helsinki). The uniform booking didn’t have any effect on the independence of both flights. The judgment is correct. It was correct do deny the German courts’ international jurisdiction. First, claims resulting from the Regulation on air passengers rights fall within the meaning the term ‘provision of services’ in Art. 5 no. 1 (b) Brussels I. Further, the defendant by contract wasn’t obliged to perform any activities in Stuttgart. His contractual performance solely concerned the flight route between Paris and Helsinki. The fact that the claimant has booked the flight with Air France doesn’t indicate that the two sections should be considered as one route in order to determine Stuttgart as the starting point of one uniform flight. Therefore solely Paris or Helsinki can be considered as the place of performance within the meaning of Art. 5 Brussels I. The claimant’s contractual partner was Air France. The mere possibility to claim transportation from Paris to Helsinki doesn’t suffice to assume an activity of contractual performance within Art. 5 Brussels I in Stuttgart.