Harju Maakohus Tallinna kohtumaja; 2025-01-28; 2-23-117906/27
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:EE:HMK:2025:2.23.117906.17148
Date: 2025-01-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Estonia

82025EE0128(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Harju Maakohus (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), concerned compensation for a long flight delay under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) and the international jurisdiction of the Estonian courts under the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2).
Flagito OÜ (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), as assignee of the passenger’s claim, sought payment from Turkish Airlines Inc. (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) of EUR 400, default interest and EUR 40 debt-recovery costs. The claim related to flight TK3025 from Tallinn to Antalya, which departed more than 12 hours late and, therefore, arrived more than three hours after the scheduled arrival time; under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union), passengers are entitled to compensation where the arrival delay is three hours or more.
The defendant argued, inter alia, that the Estonian courts lacked jurisdiction, that the assignment was a sham (and contrary to good morals), and that the delay resulted from extraordinary circumstances: weather allegedly preventing the inbound flight TK3024 from landing in Tallinn and ensuing crew duty-time limits. The defendant also disputed that the passenger had checked in and paid for the trip.
The Court of First Instance held that it had jurisdiction under Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (place of performance of services). It found that the passenger was eligible for compensation, relying on evidence of check-in (boarding-pass material) and payment records for the travel package.
As to standing, the Court of First Instance rejected the defendant’s objections to the assignment. It held that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 contains no prohibition on assignment, and that Estonian law does not impose a general form requirement for assignment. The evidence supported a genuine intention to transfer the claim to the plaintiff, including through the plaintiff’s online process; the Court accepted that a mechanically reproduced signature could satisfy the applicable form, and considered that the arrangement did not deprive the passenger of the compensation but rather concerned remuneration for a recovery service.
On the merits, the Court of First Instance found that the defendant had not proved extraordinary circumstances within Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The evidence showed that other flights landed in Tallinn during the relevant period and that fog, as such, did not make landing objectively impossible. The Court also held that the defendant had not demonstrated that it had taken all reasonable measures, including adequate contingency planning and steps to mitigate the effects of disruption (such as arranging a replacement crew).
The Court of First Instance therefore upheld the claim and ordered the defendant to pay EUR 400, accrued default interest, EUR 40 debt-recovery costs, further statutory interest, and the plaintiff’s costs.
(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 (recast).