Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:71
Date: 2022-02-03
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport;Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Anonymised version 
Translation  C-20/21 – 1 
Case C-20/21 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
13 January 2021 
Referring court: 
Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
26 November 2020 
Applicants: 
JW 
HD 
XS 
Defendant: 
LOT Polish Airlines 
  
Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, 
Germany)    […] 26 November 2020 
[…] 
[…] 
Order 
In the […] 
1. JW, […] 
2. HD, […] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 26. 11. 2020 – CASE C-20/21 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
3. XS, represented by JW and HD, Berlin, 
applicants and appellants, 
[…] 
v 
LOT Polish Airlines […], 
defendant and respondent 
[…] [Or. 2] 
[…] 
the 24th Civil Chamber of the Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main […] ordered as 
follows on 26 November 2020: 
I. The following question on the interpretation of EU law is referred to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU: 
Must Article 7(1)(b) of 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 
be interpreted as meaning that the place of performance, within the meaning 
of that provision, in respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single 
booking for the entire journey and divided into two or more legs, can also be 
the place of arrival of the first leg of the journey where transport on those 
legs of the journey is performed by two separate air carriers and the claim 
for compensation brought on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 
arises from the delay of the first leg of the journey and is brought against the 
operating air carrier of that first leg? 
II. The appeal proceedings are stayed. [Or. 3] 
Grounds 
The applicants seek compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on 
account of a flight delay. 
The applicants had a confirmed single booking with the defendant for a flight 
from Warsaw to Frankfurt (flight number LO 379) on 27 April 2019, with a 
directly connecting flight with Lufthansa AG from Frankfurt to Malé/Maldives 
(flight number LH 704). Flight LO 379 was scheduled to depart at 5:05 p.m. local 
time and land in Frankfurt at 7:00 p.m. local time. The departure was delayed, 
however, as a result of which flight LO 379 did not arrive in Frankfurt until 8:07 
p.m. local time and the applicants missed their connecting flight to Malé, which 
departed at 8:05 p.m. local time. The applicants only reached their final 
LOT POLISH AIRLINES 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
destination of Malé after a delay of more than four hours. The distance between 
Warsaw and Malé is more than 3 500 kilometres. 
At first instance, the applicants sought compensation of EUR 600.00 as well as 
indemnification of pre-litigation legal costs. The defendant contested the local and 
international jurisdiction of the Amtsgericht Frankfurt (District Court, Frankfurt, 
Germany). 
The District Court, Frankfurt dismissed the action as inadmissible by judgment of 
29 April 2020. In its reasoning, it stated that the place of jurisdiction cannot be 
Frankfurt, since neither the place of departure nor the place of arrival is located in 
the judicial district of Frankfurt. Nor does such jurisdiction follow from the 
Brussels I Regulation. In the case of the carriage of passengers by air, both the 
contractual place of departure and the contractual place of arrival are to be 
regarded as the main places of provision of the service. Neither the place of 
departure nor the place of arrival is located in the judicial district of Frankfurt, 
however. 
On appeal, the applicants further argue that the action is admissible. They submit 
that the local jurisdiction of the Local Court, Frankfurt results from Article 7(1)(b) 
of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. The fact that Warsaw and Malé are places of 
performance in the present case does not preclude the existence of other places of 
performance. 
The success of the appeal depends crucially on whether the place of performance, 
within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, in 
respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey 
and divided into two or more legs, can also be the place of arrival of the first leg 
of the journey where [Or. 4] transport on those legs of the journey is performed 
by two separate air carriers and the claim for compensation brought on the basis of 
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 arises from the delay of the first leg of the journey 
and is brought against the operating air carrier of that first leg. 
The Court of Justice has not yet ruled on that question. 
It is true that, in its decision of 9 July 2009 (case number C-204/08), the Court of 
Justice held that the only places which have a direct link to those services, 
provided in performance of obligations linked to the subject matter of the contract, 
are those of the departure and arrival of the aircraft, since the words ‘places of 
departure and arrival’ must be understood as agreed in the contract of carriage in 
question, made with one sole airline which is the operating carrier. However, that 
case is not comparable to the present one. The present case – unlike the situation 
on which the Court of Justice ruled in that decision – does not concern a direct 
flight, but rather a single booking for a journey consisting of two legs, only the 
first of which was operated by the defendant. 
In the judgment of 7 March 2018 (case reference C-274/16, C-447/16, C-448/16), 
the Court of Justice held that, in the case of a connecting flight, the place of arrival 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 26. 11. 2020 – CASE C-20/21 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
of the second leg can also be regarded as the place of performance of that flight, 
for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, where the 
carriage on both flights was operated by two different air carriers and the action is 
based on an irregularity which took place on the first of those flights, operated by 
the air carrier with which the passengers concerned do not have contractual 
relations. The reason for this, according to that judgment, is that the place of 
arrival of the second leg of the journey is one of the main places of provision of 
services under a contract for carriage by air and that place has a sufficiently close 
link with the material elements of the dispute. However, the Court of Justice 
therefore did not answer the question to be ruled on in the present dispute, as to 
whether the place of arrival of the first leg also has such a sufficiently close link. 
The fact that, in the present case, the most important aspect for the parties will 
have been the transport to the final destination – that is to say, the transfer is only 
a means to an end, and the circumstance of Frankfurt being the place of transfer 
ultimately came about arbitrarily – militates against such an assumption. This 
Chamber takes the view that there is no obligation to proceed on the basis of such 
an [Or. 5] assumption, however. Against that background, it cannot be ruled out 
that the place of arrival of the first leg of the journey, that is to say, Frankfurt, also 
constitutes a further place of performance. 
The order of the Court of Justice of 13 February 2020 (case reference C-606/19) 
does not provide an answer to the present question either. This is because, in that 
order, the Court of Justice held that the place of performance, in respect of a flight 
consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey and divided into 
several legs, can be the place of departure of the first leg of the journey where 
transport on those legs of the journey is performed by two separate air carriers and 
the claim for compensation brought on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 
arises from the cancellation of the final leg of the journey and is brought against 
the air carrier in charge of that last leg. However, the decision does not explicitly 
state whether this also applies to the place of arrival of the first leg of the journey. 
[…]