EUPillar BGH, 12.11.2009

Summary

The plaintiff having his domicile in Germany booked a flight from Munich to Vilnius (Lithuania) by the defendant, a company based in Riga (Latvia). The flight was delayed thirty minutes before departure so the plaintiff arrived six hours later than originally planned. The plaintiff brought an action for damages before the Local Court Erding (Germany). The local court stated the international jurisdiction of German courts. The Higher Regional Court had to consider the appeal against this judgment and denied the international jurisdiction of German courts. The Federal Court of Justice in 2008 then has been charged with the appeal against the Higher Regional Court’s judgment and made a preliminary request concerning the following issues: 1. Is the second indent of Art. 5 no. 1 (b) Brussels I to be interpreted as meaning that in the case also of journeys by air from one Member State to another Member State, the single place of performance for all contractual obligations must be taken to be the place of the main provision of services, determined according to economic criteria? 2. Where a single place of performance is to be determined: what criteria are relevant for its determination; is the single place of performance determined, in particular, by the place of departure or the place of arrival of the aircraft? The CJEU answered the questions in 2008 (C-204/08): The second indent of Art. 5 no. 1 (b) Brussels I must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of air transport of passengers from one Member State to another Member State, carried out on the basis of a contract with only one airline, which is the operating carrier, the court having jurisdiction to deal with a claim for compensation founded on that transport contract and on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, is that, at the applicant’s choice, which has territorial jurisdiction over the place of departure or place of arrival of the aircraft, as those places are agreed in that contract. Given this judgment the Federal Court of Justice stated that the assumption of the Local Court was correct. As the place of departure was in Germany (Munich) the German courts were internationally competent.