BGH; 2016-06-14; X ZR 80/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:140616BXZR80.15.0
Date: 2016-06-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82016DE0614(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The judgment raises a question referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling on air passenger rights.
The passenger (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) booked a flight from Berlin to Beijing with a short layover in Brussels. He concluded the contract for the provision of services with an air carrier company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) which organised the entire journey. The plaintiff checked in his luggage for both flights and received his two boarding passes in Berlin. The transfer of the plaintiff from Berlin airport to Brussels airport was carried out by a third company. The plaintiff was denied boarding in Brussels by the defendant without reason and against his will.
The plaintiff sought compensation under Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) and the payment of interest from the date of lis pendens.
The plaintiff first applied to the Amtsgericht (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) and further appealed to the Berufungsgericht (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal'). Both courts denied the international jurisdiction of the German courts in the dispute. The plaintiff appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
In its analysis, the Supreme Court noted that the admissibility of the appeal depends decisively on the competence of the German courts. In the present case, the German courts only have jurisdiction if the place of performance of the contract is considered to be in Germany, specifically in the present case, Berlin. Such jurisdiction would derive from Article 5(1)(a) and second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (2).
The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings and referred the following question on the interpretation of the European Union law to the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU (3):
‘Where passengers are transported on two flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airports, is the place of departure of the first leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of [the Brussels I Regulation], even when the claim advanced in the application for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is based on a disruption to the second leg of the journey and the action is brought against the party to the contract of carriage, which, although it was the operating air carrier for the second flight, was not the operating air carrier for the first flight?’
(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) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(3) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
(4) Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2016 — Roland Becker v Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd. (Case C-447/16).