Harju Maakohus; 2021-08-17; 2-20-135477/10
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:HMK:2021:2.20.135477.16871
Date: 2021-08-17
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82021EE0817(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a compensation claim for a cancelled flight brought before the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).
An Estonian national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) paid for four tickets for a flight operated by a Latvian airline (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) scheduled for June 2020, which was later cancelled due to the spread of coronavirus. As the defendant had not reimbursed the plaintiff for the cancellation in due time, the plaintiff requested, in September 2020, the Pärnu Maakohus (Court in Pärnu, Estonia) to grant him a payment order for compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1). The plaintiff grounded the jurisdiction of the Estonian court on the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) and Case C-204/08 (3) of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
In November 2020, the defendant objected and argued that in October 2020, it had already reimbursed the plaintiff ‘the full costs of the tickets’ in compliance with Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The plaintiff bought the tickets via an intermediary online agent. Therefore, the defendant sent the money representing the actual costs of the ticket back to that intermediary agent. The defendant stated that the fact that the intermediary had not refunded the requested amount was not the defendant’s responsibility.
In February 2021, the dispute continued by the plaintiff’s new action before the Court of First Instance. The plaintiff sought reimbursement of EUR 277 for the purchased tickets, plus the default interest and the costs of the proceedings.
On 28 April 2021, the plaintiff waived his principal claim to EUR 277 since the ticket money had been credited to his account on 20 April 2021. Still, the plaintiff maintained the ancillary claims.
According to the Court of First Instance, the VÕS (4) and Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 apply to this case. It is apparent from the evidence submitted that the defendant approached the intermediary only ca. one month after the plaintiff applied to the Court in Pärnu. The ticket money was credited to the plaintiff’s account again only after the action before the Court of First Instance was filed. The defendant’s defence that the plaintiff’s loss could have been compensated without the court proceedings is unfounded.
However, since the plaintiff abandoned the main claim, the Court of First Instance confirmed that there is no longer a dispute over the principal sum of EUR 277 between the parties. The Court of First Instance further assessed only the plaintiff’s claims for interest and reimbursement of procedural costs.
The Court of First Instance cited national law and related case law of the Riigikohus (the Supreme Court) and finally held that the defendant must also pay to plaintiff default interest, recovery costs, and the costs of the proceedings amounting together to an additional EUR 406.
(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.
(2) 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.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 July 2009, Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation, C-204/08, ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2009:439.
(4) Võlaõigusseadus (Law of Obligations Act).