AG Nürnberg; 2022-12-07; 23 C 3359/22
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:AGNUERN:2022:1207.23C3359.22.00
Date: 2022-12-07
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82022DE1207(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) concerned the request for a preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU (2).
The parties to the underlying dispute were a tour operator domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) and a plaintiff domiciled in Nurnberg, Germany. The plaintiff demanded from the defendant the payment of compensation. The defendant contested the local jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and applied for the action to be dismissed.
The local jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance could solely result from the application of Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). Different views existed as to the question of whether the provision of Article 18(1) was to be interpreted to the extent that in cases where a consumer domiciled in a Member State made a contract with a tour operator domiciled in the same Member State regarding a journey to a foreign destination, the consumer could bring proceedings in the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled.
Under the prevailing opinion in the case law, the Brussels I Regulation (recast) could only be applied in the presence of a cross-border element in that the consumer and the other party to a contract must be domiciled in different Member States of the European Union. The European Commission, however, expressed the opinion (3) that the cross-border element could be derived from the individual circumstances, such as the destination and place of performance of the contractual obligation.
With regard to these differing views, the Court of First Instance stayed the proceedings and submitted the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:
Is Article 18(1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to providing for international jurisdiction, the rule also concerns a provision on the local jurisdiction of national courts in matters relating to a travel contract where both the consumer, as a traveller, and the other party to the contract, the tour operator, have their seat in the same Member State, but the travel destination is situated not in that Member State but abroad with the consequence that the consumer can make contractual claims against the tour operator supplementing national provisions on jurisdiction at the court of his or her place of residence?
(1) 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 (recast).
(2) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
(3) European Commission opinion from 8 December 2020 in the case C-317/20.