BGH; 2016-06-14; X ZR 92/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:140616BXZR92.15.0
Date: 2016-06-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82016DE0614(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A German national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed an action against an operating air carrier domiciled outside of Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) seeking the payment of compensation and the refund of expenditure for assistance services.
Due to a delayed flight from Mellila to Madrid, the plaintiff, his wife and three children missed their connecting flight to Frankfurt am Main and reached their final destination with a delay of 4 hours.
The Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) decided in favour of the plaintiff’s application.
Upon the appeal of the defendant, the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) dismissed the action citing a lack of international jurisdiction and that the place of performance was in Spain.
The success of the revision filed by the plaintiff with the Bundesgerichtshof (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) is largely dependent on the question of whether the German court has international jurisdiction or not.
Whether the local jurisdiction according to the place of performance was given depends on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) second indent of the Brussels I Regulation (1). This matter has to be clarified by the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter ‘the CJEU’) within the preliminary ruling procedure.
The Supreme Court stayed the proceedings and submitted to the CJEU the following questions:
1. Is Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘matters relating to a contract’ also involves claims for compensation under Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation pursued against an operating air carrier who was not the contracting party of the air passenger in question?
2. If Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation is applicable: if the passenger transportation involves two flights without a significant stay at the transit airport, does the final destination of the air passenger also represent the place of performance under Article 5(1)(b) second indent of the Brussels I Regulation when the compensation claim pursued by the claim is based on a problem occurred during the first part of the journey and the action is made against the operating air carrier of the first flight who was not party to the contract of carriage?
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.