Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:771
Date: 2025-10-09
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

summary of the relevant findings of fact or, at least, an account of the facts on which the questions are based, as well as a statement of the reasons which prompted the referring court or tribunal to inquire about the interpretation or validity of certain provisions of EU law, and the relationship between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the main proceedings. 27 In the present case, it should be recalled that Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 establishes, as regards disputes arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, a rule of special jurisdiction in favour of the courts for the place where the branch, agency or other establishment is situated. 28 It must be observed that, despite the fact that the referring court refers to Article 7(5) both in the grounds of the request for a preliminary ruling and in the question referred to the Court of Justice, that court does not provide any factual support concerning acts relating to the operation of a branch, agency or any other establishment of Lufthansa in Poland, or commitments entered into by those entities on behalf of Lufthansa, such as the possible involvement of those entities in the conclusion of the contract of carriage by air at issue in the case in the main proceedings. Although that court gives detailed consideration to the question whether the contract giving rise to the obligation in question, within the meaning of Article 7(1) of that regulation, is the assignment agreement or the contract of carriage, it does not indicate the reasons which also led it to question the interpretation of Article 7(5) of that regulation. 29 The referring court merely specifies that it is required to review of its own motion whether it has international jurisdiction to hear the action before it. Although it cannot be ruled out that such a review may lead it to examine the ground of jurisdiction provided for in Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012, the fact remains that the Court should have sufficient information in order to satisfy itself that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears a relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose. 30 However, in the present case, there is no such information. Consequently, in so far as the question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012, it is inadmissible. Substance 31 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a court of one Member State has jurisdiction, in accordance with that provision, to hear a dispute relating to a claim for compensation brought against an air carrier, established on the territory of another Member State, by a company which is the assignee of a passenger’s claim arising from the performance of a contract of carriage concluded with that carrier. 32 As a preliminary point, it should be recalled, first, that Regulation No 1215/2012 aims to harmonise the rules regarding conflicting jurisdictions in civil and commercial matters by means of creating rules governing jurisdiction that are highly predictable. Therefore, the purpose of this regulation is to strengthen the legal protection of persons established in the European Union by enabling the applicant to identify easily the court in which he or she may sue and a normally well-informed defendant reasonably to foresee in which court he or she may be sued (judgment of 11 April 2024, Credit Agricole Bank Polska, C‑183/23, EU:C:2024:297, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited). 33 Second, the system of common rules of conferment of jurisdiction laid down in Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012 is based on the general rule, set out in Article 4(1) thereof, that persons domiciled in a Member State are to be sued in the courts of that Member State, irrespective of the nationality of the parties. It is only by way of derogation from that general rule of jurisdiction of the courts of the defendant’s domicile that Chapter II, Section 2, of that regulation provides for a number of special rules of jurisdiction, including that set out in the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation (judgment of 14 September 2023, EXTÉRIA, C‑393/22, EU:C:2023:675, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited). 34 Under the rule of special jurisdiction laid down in that provision, the court having jurisdiction to hear a claim based on a contract for the provision of services is the court for the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided. 35 It also follows from the case-law that the rule of special jurisdiction laid down in the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 reflects a concern for proximity, motivated by the existence of a close connection between the contract concerned and the court called upon to hear it (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 September 2023, EXTÉRIA, C‑393/22, EU:C:2023:675, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited). 36 It is in the light of those considerations that it must be determined whether the fact that a claim, arising from the performance of a contract of carriage by air concluded between a consumer and a trader, has been transferred by that consumer to a company specialising in the recovery of air passengers’ claims is such as to preclude the application of the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 in order to determine which court has jurisdiction to hear a claim for compensation brought by the assignee against the air carrier. 37 In that regard, as is apparent from paragraph 35 above, the rule of special jurisdiction laid down in the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) is not intended to protect the weaker party in a contractual relationship, given that that rule was not established in the light of the status of the contracting parties, but is based on the existence of a close connection between the court seised and the contract concerned. In those circumstances, the fact that the consumer’s claim for compensation has been transferred to a trader has no bearing on the application of that rule. 38 As the Court has stated in the context of a dispute concerning claims relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, the transfer of claims by the initial creditor cannot, by itself, have an impact on the determination of the court having jurisdiction (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 July 2013, ÖFAB, C‑147/12, EU:C:2013:490, paragraph 58, and of 21 May 2015, CDC Hydrogen Peroxide, C‑352/13, EU:C:2015:335, paragraph 35). 39 Similarly, a dispute concerning the recovery of a claim arising from the performance of a contract for the provision of services continues to have a close connection with the place of performance of the obligation in question, namely the place in a Member State where, under that contract, the services were provided or should have been provided, within the meaning of the second indent of Article 7(1)(b), even though that claim has been transferred to a third party. 40 That interpretation ensures legal certainty and predictability, in particular for the defendant, in matters of jurisdiction, which are objectives pursued by Regulation No 1215/2012, as is apparent from recitals 15 and 16 of that regulation, in so far as the court having jurisdiction to hear such an action will always be the court of the place where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided, irrespective of the existence of an assignment of the claim arising from that contract. 41 In the present case, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that AirHelp acquired a claim arising from the performance of a contract of carriage by air, concluded between a consumer and Lufthansa, the cause of which was the delay of a flight operated by that airline, from Kraków to Nice (France) with a connection in Munich (Germany), which is a matter for the referring court to ascertain. 42 In so far as the place of departure of that flight corresponds to one of the main places of provision of the services which are the subject of that contract and therefore ensures the close connection required by the rules of special jurisdiction set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 between that contract and the court which has territorial jurisdiction over that place, the Polish courts appear to have jurisdiction to hear the action in the main proceedings (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 February 2022, LOT Polish Airlines, C‑20/21, EU:C:2022:71, paragraph 20). 43 Neither the particular features of the assignment agreement at issue in the main proceedings nor the absence of a contractual link between the parties to the dispute are such as to call that jurisdiction into question. 44 First, the fact that, as is apparent from the order for reference, under the terms of the assignment agreement at issue, the assigning consumer does not transfer, under Polish law, his or her procedural rights to the assignee trader is not relevant for the application of the rule of jurisdiction laid down in the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012. That rule is based on the obligation in question, that is to say, the subject matter of the dispute, determined by that of the contract concerned, since the assignment agreement confers standing to bring proceedings solely on the assignee. 45 Second, as regards the fact that the parties in the main proceedings are not directly bound by a contract, referred to both by the referring court and by Lufthansa in its written observations, it should be observed that, in so far as the assignment agreement confers on the assignee the rights enjoyed by the assignor in relation to the carrier and therefore the right to bring proceedings for the recovery of the claim arising from the contract of carriage by air, that fact is also not such as to preclude the application of the rule of jurisdiction laid down in that provision. 46 In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a court of one Member State has jurisdiction, in accordance with that provision, to hear a dispute relating to a claim for compensation brought against an air carrier, established on the territory of another Member State, by a company which is the assignee of a passenger’s claim arising from the performance of a contract of carriage concluded with that carrier, so long as that court is the court for the place where, under that contract, the services were provided or should have been provided. Costs 47 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules: The second indent of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a court of one Member State has jurisdiction, in accordance with that provision, to hear a dispute relating to a claim for compensation brought against an air carrier, established on the territory of another Member State, by a company which is the assignee of a passenger’s claim arising from the performance of a contract of carriage concluded with that carrier, so long as that court is the court for the place where, under that contract, the services were provided or should have been provided. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Polish.