# C_2020215EN.01000401.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8 — Czech Republic) — Libuše Králová v Primera Air Scandinavia

(Case C-215/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(1) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Articles 15 to 17 - Jurisdiction over consumer contracts - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 6 and 7 - Right to compensation in the case where a flight is subject to a long delay - Contract for carriage combining travel and accommodation concluded between the passenger and a travel agency - Action for compensation brought against the air carrier which is not a party to that contract - Directive 90/314/EEC - Package travel)

(2020/C 215/05)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 8

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Libuše Králová

Defendant: Primera Air Scandinavia

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | 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, must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger on a flight which has been delayed for three hours or more may bring an action for compensation under Articles 6 and 7 of that regulation against the operating air carrier, even if that passenger and that air carrier have not entered into a contract between them and the flight in question forms part of a package tour covered by Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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, must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger on a flight which has been delayed for three hours or more may bring an action for compensation under Articles 6 and 7 of that regulation against the operating air carrier, even if that passenger and that air carrier have not entered into a contract between them and the flight in question forms part of a package tour covered by Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours.

| 2. | Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for compensation brought pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 by a passenger against the operating air carrier comes within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision, even if no contract was concluded between those parties and the flight operated by that air carrier was provided for by a package travel contract, also including accommodation, concluded with a third party. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for compensation brought pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 by a passenger against the operating air carrier comes within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision, even if no contract was concluded between those parties and the flight operated by that air carrier was provided for by a package travel contract, also including accommodation, concluded with a third party.

| 3. | Articles 15 to 17 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for compensation brought by a passenger against the operating air carrier, with which that passenger has not concluded a contract, does not come within the scope of those articles relating to special jurisdiction over consumer contracts. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Articles 15 to 17 of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for compensation brought by a passenger against the operating air carrier, with which that passenger has not concluded a contract, does not come within the scope of those articles relating to special jurisdiction over consumer contracts.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---