BGH; 2018-09-11; X ZR 80/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2018:110918UXZR80.15.0
Date: 2018-09-11
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82018DE0911(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A German national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action against an air carrier with its registered office in the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) claiming compensation of EUR 600.
The plaintiff concluded an air transport contract with the defendant. The first flight from Berlin to Brussels went according to plan. However, he was denied boarding on the connecting flight to Beijing for no reason and against his will. He then flew back to Berlin and from there directly to Beijing due to another booking.
The Amtsgericht Wedding (‘the Court of First Instance’) denied the international jurisdiction of the German courts and dismissed the action as inadmissible.
The plaintiff’s appeal to the Landgericht Berlin (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was unsuccessful.
The plaintiff’s appeal to the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) is admissible and well founded.
In accordance with § 29 of the ZPO (1), the Court of First Instance has local and thus international jurisdiction as the court of the place of departure of the first partial flight.
The Court of Justice of the European Union, to which the Supreme Court referred questions on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Brussels I Regulation (1), pointed out in its reasoning that a contract of carriage by air characterised by a single reservation for the entire journey creates an obligation for an air carrier to carry a passenger from ‘A’ to ‘C’ and comprises two partial flights.
Article 5(1)(b), second indent, of the Brussels I Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that, as one of the places where the transport service is principally provided, place ‘A’ must be regarded as the place of departure of the first of two partial flights.
In the event that several flights are booked together, the place of performance shall be the place of jurisdiction for both the departure point of the first flight and the arrival point of the last flight.
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for a new hearing and decision.
(1) Zivilprozessordnung (Code of civil procedure).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.