Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt; 2020-01-16; Fluggesellschaft, Verbraucher ; 16 U 208/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2020:0116.16U208.18.00
Date: 2020-01-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE0116(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A private person (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against French air carrier, Air France (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), seeking compensation due to the cancelation of a contract of transport by air.
Through the website of the defendant ‘air-land1.de’, the plaintiff booked a first-class flight ticket from San Francisco to Paris and a business class ticket for the connecting flight from Paris to London for EUR 582.97. The plaintiff paid by a bank transfer and received an electronic ticket.
On the next day, the plaintiff received an email from the ‘Customer Care Europe’ of the defendant stating that the booked flight ticket had been cancelled due to a system error and that the amount paid had been refunded. Later, after one month, a flight comparable to the booked flight costed EUR 10_578.86. With his action, the plaintiff sought the payment of this sum.
The defendant contested the international jurisdiction of the German courts stating that Article 7(5) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) was not applicable. The booking website had been operated from the headquarters of the defendant and respective flight ticket had not been issued in the office in Frankfurt am Main.
The Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) found the action inadmissible and dismissed it.
An admissible appeal lodged by the plaintiff with the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) was not successful.
According to the defendant, in Frankfurt am Main was the office of the managing director and the marketing department for Germany. This could establish the required permanent business activity, which was a minimum precondition for the existence of a branch office. This question, however, could remain unanswered because the other criterium was missing, namely that the dispute must arise from the operation of this branch office. To this extent, the defendant stated without any protest of the plaintiff, that in Frankfurt am Main were active only as employees responsible exclusively for marketing, market monitoring, human resources and operating an internal support department. These employees were not responsible for booking operations.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff against the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.