The judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on Thursday 11 April in case C-464/18 that a passenger may bring an action before the court of a Member State in which the branch of an airline is established when that branch has intervened in the legal relationship between the airline and the passenger in question.
An individual bought a ticket online for a Ryanair flight between Porto (Portugal) and Barcelona (Spain). As the flight was delayed, the consumer brought an action before a Spanish Court for compensation from Ryanair, on the basis of Regulation 261/2004 pertaining to air passenger rights.
The Commercial Court No1 of Girona, having doubts as to its jurisdiction in this case because the passenger does not reside in Spain and the company has its registered office in Ireland, referred the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling as to whether, within the meaning of Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction, a court of a Member State has jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to an action for damages against an airline established in the territory of another Member State, but having a branch in the Member State where the court is located. In addition, the Spanish Court asked the Court whether it could exercise international jurisdiction here, the airline had not objected to this.
In their judgment, the judges first recalled that Regulation 261/2004 does not contain rules on the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States, so the matter should be examined in the light of the Regulation on jurisdiction.
On the basis of the latter, the judiciaries add that the competent court could be in the Member State of departure or arrival of the flight, under the jurisdiction rule based on the place of performance of the obligation, or in the Member State where the company has its registered office, on the basis of the general principle of the defendant's forum. On the other hand, the competent court could not be located in the consumer's Member State of domicile, since Regulation 1215/2012 excludes the applicability of this criterion to transport contracts, with the exception of those which combine travel and accommodation for a fixed price.
As regards the question of the branch, the Court points out that the concept of a branch is conditional on the existence of an operations centre which manifests itself in a sustainable manner towards the outside world as an extension of a parent company. For a court of a Member State to have jurisdiction to deal with a dispute involving a company with a branch in the Member State in which that court is located, the dispute must relate to acts relating to the operation of a branch or to commitments made by the branch on behalf of the parent company, if they are to be performed in the State in which that branch is located.
In the present case, in the dispute in question, the purchase of an air ticket online does not make it possible to indicate that the contract of carriage between the consumer and the company was concluded via that branch.
The judiciaries therefore conclude on this point that a court of a Member State has no jurisdiction to hear a dispute relating to an action for damages brought on the basis of Regulation 261/2004 against a company established in another Member State where that company has a branch within the State’s jurisdiction, but the branch has not taken part in the legal relationship between the consumer and the company.
Finally, on the second question, the Court considers that when the defendant appeared before a court without contesting its jurisdiction, this appearance may be considered to amount to a tacit acceptance of jurisdiction. But such reasoning does not apply when no observations are submitted.
See the decision: https://bit.ly/2Uek3uV (Lucas Tripoteau)