# C_2018392EN.01000401.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Gerona (Spain) lodged on 17 July 2018 — ZX v Ryanair D.A.C.

(Case C-464/18)

(2018/C 392/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Gerona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ZX

Defendant: Ryanair D.A.C.

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) require, in all respects, an autonomous interpretation common to all the Member States, which cannot, therefore, be made subject to limitations laid down in Member States’ rules on domestic jurisdiction? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) require, in all respects, an autonomous interpretation common to all the Member States, which cannot, therefore, be made subject to limitations laid down in Member States’ rules on domestic jurisdiction?

| 2. | Is the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 a ‘pure’ rule of international jurisdiction, which determines exclusively the courts of a particular Member State but leaves it to the procedural law of that Member State to specify the court with territorial jurisdiction or, on the other hand, is it a rule of both international and territorial jurisdiction? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 a ‘pure’ rule of international jurisdiction, which determines exclusively the courts of a particular Member State but leaves it to the procedural law of that Member State to specify the court with territorial jurisdiction or, on the other hand, is it a rule of both international and territorial jurisdiction?

| 3. | In the light of the facts of the case, can a situation involving a flight which is operated by an airline domiciled in another Member State, but which departs from or arrives in a Member State where that airline has a branch providing ancillary services to the airline but through which the tickets were not purchased, be deemed to constitute a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, which is the basis for the connecting factor for the ground of jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the light of the facts of the case, can a situation involving a flight which is operated by an airline domiciled in another Member State, but which departs from or arrives in a Member State where that airline has a branch providing ancillary services to the airline but through which the tickets were not purchased, be deemed to constitute a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, which is the basis for the connecting factor for the ground of jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

---