Nejvyšší soud ČR; 2021-08-31; 25 Cdo 2426/2021
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:CZ:NS:2022:25.CDO.2426.2021.1
Date: 2022-08-31
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Czechia

82022CZ0831(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case concerns a question of passive standing in a compensation dispute brought before the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
A natural person (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought an action under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) against an air carrier domiciled in the Netherlands (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) for compensation in respect of a delayed flight. Relying on Article 2(b) of the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) granted the application. In this case, the flight to the final destination consisted of several connecting flights. The defendant only operated part of the journey. The court concluded that where a passenger buys a package composed of connecting flights in a single booking, the selling carrier must be held liable, regardless of who provided the aircraft for the connecting flights. The defendant was ordered to pay compensation of EUR 600.
The Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) reversed the first instance decision and dismissed the action. According to the Court of Appeal, the Court of First Instance had erred in its assessment of the defendant as a party to the dispute because another air carrier had issued the ticket for the journey, moreover from a third country, although the documents accompanying the ticket indicated that the defendant had marketed the flight.
The plaintiff lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, alleging a misapplication of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
The Supreme Court cited several provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and the relevant case law of the CJEU. It explained that the passenger’s rights within the meaning of the Regulation could not be strictly linked to the air carrier, which has a direct contractual relationship with the passenger, since the Regulation does not make this a necessary qualifying condition for the operating air carrier to be obliged to pay appropriate compensation. How the carrier is identified on the documents issued for the flight is not decisive. The flight must be considered as a single flight, including any stopovers. It may be operated by more than one air carrier. In the circumstances of the present case, the passive standing of a Community air carrier, which operated part of a flight comprising several flights with stopovers, is not precluded by the fact that the ticket for the entire flight was issued by an air carrier of a third country. According to the Supreme Court, the plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation from the defendant even though the latter only operated part of the flight.
Therefore, the conclusion of the Court of Appeal was wrong and must be rejected. The case was referred back to the Court of Appeal.
(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.