Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:129
Date: 2023-02-16
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Summary C-530/22 – 1 
Case C-530/22 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
9 August 2022 
Referring court: 
Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
20 June 2022 
Applicant: 
Dunaj-Finanse sp. z o.o. 
Defendant: 
KG 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The case brought by Dunaj-Finanse sp. z o.o. for payment under a receivables 
purchase agreement of an amount including the regular fare and an additional 
charge together with interest for late payment. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Article 3(8) of Regulation No 1371/2007 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and 
obligations, Article 6(1) and (2) of Appendix A in Annex I to Regulation 
No 1371/2007 (‘Regulation No 1371/2007’), Article 169(1) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (‘the TFEU’), Articles 20 and 38 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the 
principles of effectiveness, equality before the law and consistency of EU law – 
legal basis: Article 267 TFEU. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-530/22 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Pursuant to Article 267 [TFEU, the referring court decides] to ask the Court […] 
to answer the following question: 
Must Article 3(8) of Regulation No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations, 
Article 6(1) and (2) of Appendix A in Annex I to Regulation No 1371/2007, 
Article 169(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 
Articles 20 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as 
well as the principles of effectiveness, equality before the law and consistency of 
EU law be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law according to 
which no contract of carriage is concluded between a carrier and a passenger who 
boards a train without the intention of purchasing a ticket? […] 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on  
Article 169(1) TFEU; 
Article 20 and Article 38 of the Charter;  
recitals 1, 2, 3, 17, Article 1(a), Article 3(2), Article 3(8), Article 3(16), Article 4, 
Article 6(1), Article 6(2) and Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1371/2007; 
Article 6(1), Article 6(2), Article 6(3), Article 8(1) and Article 9(1) of Appendix 
A in Annex I to Regulation No 1371/2007;  
recitals 1 and 2, and Article 3(m) of Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the 
rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending 
Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (‘Regulation No 1177/2010’); 
recitals 1 and 2, and Article 3(c) of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 concerning the rights of 
passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) 
No 2006/2004 (‘Regulation No 181/2011’);  
Article 2(a), Article 2(b), Article 3 and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 
93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 
93/13’); 
Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 
93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Directive 2011/83’); 
DUNAJ-FINANSE 
 
3 
Article 2(2) of Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of 
goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and 
repealing Directive 1999/44/EC (‘Directive 2019/771’);  
judgment of 21 September 2016, Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische 
Spoorwegen NV v Gregory Demey, C-261/15, EU:C:2016:709 (‘the judgment in 
Case C-261/15’); 
Opinion of the Advocate General of 11 June 2019, Nationale Maatschappij der 
Belgische Spoorwegen (NMBS) v Mbutuku Kanyeba and Others, C-349/18 to 
C-351/18, EU:C:2019:478 (‘the Opinion in Joined Cases C-349/18 to C-351/18’); 
judgment of 7 November 2019, Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische 
Spoorwegen (NMBS) v Mbutuku Kanyeba and Others, C-349/18 to C-351/18, 
EU:C:2019:936 (‘the judgment in Joined Cases C-349/18 to C-351/18’). 
Provisions of national law relied on and the judgment of the national court 
Constitution of the Republic of Poland – Articles 32(1) and 76 (‘the Constitution 
of the Republic of Poland’); 
ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. Kodeks cywilny (Law of 23 April 1964 – Civil 
Code, Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) No 16, item 93, as amended, ‘the Civil 
Code’) – Article 221, Article 431, Article 60, Article 60( ), Article 65(1), 
Article 117(1), Article 117(2), Article 117(21), Article 774 and Article 775; 
ustawa z dnia 15 listopada 1984 r. Prawo przewozowe (Transport Law of 
15 November 1984, Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2020, item 8, ‘the 
Transport Law’) – Article 1(1), Article 3(1), Article 4, Article 11(1), 
Article 16(1), Article 33a(3), Article 33a(6), Article 75(1), Article 75(2), 
Article 77(1), Article 77(3)(4) and Article 77(4);  
rozporządzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 20 stycznia 2005 r. w sprawie 
sposobu ustalania wysokości opłat dodatkowych z tytułu przewozu osób, 
zabranych ze sobą do przewozu rzeczy i zwierząt oraz wysokości opłaty 
manipulacyjnej (Regulation of the Minister for Infrastructure of 20 January 2005 
on the manner of determining the amount of additional charges for the carriage of 
persons, carried goods and animals, and the amount of the handling fee, Dziennik 
Ustaw (Journal of Laws) No 14, item 117; 
judgment of the Sąd Okręgowy w Kielcach (Regional Court in Kielce, Poland) of 
1 September 2019. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-530/22 
 
4  
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The defendant, KG, travelled without a valid ticket on a train operated by Koleje 
Mazowieckie (‘KM’), as a result of which he was charged the regular fare and an 
additional charge.  
2 The claim for payment of the amount owed by KG was acquired from KM by the 
applicant, Dunaj-Finanse, under a receivables purchase agreement.  
3 The applicant brought an action before the referring court, seeking an order for the 
defendant to pay it the amount due with statutory interest for late payment. The 
claim asserted by the applicant was already time-barred at the time the action was 
brought. The defendant did not respond to the action and did not file any other 
pleading.  
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
4 The applicant indicated that the legal basis for its claim is Article 33a(3) of the 
Transport Law, pursuant to which, where it is found that the relevant transport 
document is missing, the carrier or the organiser of public transport or a person 
authorised by it is to collect the regular fare and an additional charge or is to issue 
a demand for payment.  
5 At the same time, the applicant argued that the defendant travelled without a valid 
ticket and without any intention of paying the relevant fare, while KM regulations 
stipulate that the purchase and validation of a ticket is a condition for entering into 
a contract of carriage. Therefore, according to the applicant, in the light of 
Article 16(1) of the Transport Law, which stipulates that a contract of carriage is 
concluded by purchasing a ticket prior to the start of a journey or by meeting other 
conditions for accessing the means of transport in question specified by the carrier 
or the organiser of public transport, and, if such conditions are not stipulated, by 
simply boarding the means of transport – no contract of carriage had been 
concluded between KM and KG.  
6 Consequently, the applicant argues that KG cannot be considered a party to a legal 
transaction and thus a consumer within the meaning of Article 221 of the Civil 
Code, which stipulates that a consumer is a natural person who, when conducting 
a legal transaction with a seller or supplier, does not act in the course of his or her 
trade or of another commercial activity. Consequently, according to the applicant, 
Article 117(21) of the Civil Code, pursuant to which the court takes into account 
ex officio the fact that the claim asserted against a consumer is time-barred, does 
not apply to the present case; on the other hand, Article 117(2) of the Civil Code, 
pursuant to which the court does not take into account the fact that the claim is 
time-barred ex officio, but only upon the defendant’s plea, is applicable.  
DUNAJ-FINANSE 
 
5 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
7 The need for the present reference arises from the fact that EU law must be 
interpreted in order to enable the correct application of the provisions of national 
law. 
8 Assessing whether a contract of carriage was concluded is of direct relevance to 
the outcome of the case before the referring court. This issue is of material 
importance because the applicant’s claim has been time-barred since 2017, and 
was already time-barred on the date the action was brought. If it is found that a 
contract of carriage was concluded, this would mean that the defendant is a 
consumer, which would result in the claim being dismissed, since the national 
court is obliged to take into account ex officio the fact that a claim against a 
consumer is time-barred (Article 117(21) of the Civil Code). On the other hand, if 
it is found that a contract of carriage was not concluded, this would mean that the 
defendant is not a consumer, which would result in the claim being upheld, since 
the defendant did not raise an objection that the action was time barred, and the 
fact that a claim against a defendant who is not a consumer is time barred can only 
be taken into account upon the defendant’s plea (Article 117(2) of the Civil Code). 
For the avoidance of doubt, the referring court clarifies that the general provisions 
of national law (Articles 60, 61 and 65 of the Civil Code) allow, in principle, a 
contract to be concluded by tacit consent also in relation to a contract of carriage 
(Articles 774-775 of the Civil Code). 
9 In the view of the referring court, that interpretation of national law is not disputed 
in domestic case-law. According to the judgment of the Regional Court in Kielce, 
Poland, of 1 September 2019, which was cited by the applicant, ‘unless the 
passenger purchases the ticket before the start of the journey and unless a contract 
of carriage is concluded in that manner, the latter legal transaction may be 
concluded after the “other conditions” established by the carrier have been met, 
that is to say, by purchasing a ticket after the start of the journey, but still in the 
manner stipulated in the cited provisions of the Regulations’. In the present case, 
the defendant did not enter into a contract of carriage in the manner described, and 
thus the fact that he boarded the means of transport is irrelevant. According to the 
national court, given the wording of Article 16(1) of the Transport Law, this fact 
could only be relevant if the prerequisite for the application of the second, 
auxiliary condition for the contract being concluded (that is to say, merely 
boarding the means of transport) were fulfilled, namely, if and only if the carrier 
had not established ‘other conditions for accessing the means of transport’. Thus, 
the existence of those conditions renders any further conclusions related to merely 
boarding the means of transport invalid. In those circumstances, a contract of 
carriage cannot be concluded on that basis alone.  
10 Consequently, in the view of the referring court, in the light of the provisions of 
national law and the case-law cited, the defendant, who boarded a KM train, did 
not enter into a contract of carriage with the carrier and therefore cannot be 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-530/22 
 
6  
considered a consumer, which results in the claim being upheld as the defendant 
has not raised an objection that the action is time barred.  
11 However, the referring court has doubts as to whether the provisions of national 
law providing for such an effect (in this case, included in Article 16(1) of the 
Transport Law) are compatible with the provisions of EU law, and in particular 
with those of Regulation No 1371/2007. The referring court indicates that the 
provisions of Regulation No 1371/2007 have twice been examined by the Court of 
Justice. It points to the Court’s judgment in Case C-261/15 (paragraphs 25-27, 30, 
34-35), the Advocate General’s Opinion in Joined Cases C-349/18 to C-351/18 
(points 39-43, 52-53) and the judgment in Joined Cases C-349/18 to C-351/18 
(paragraphs 36-37, 47-53), while observing that although the operative parts of the 
two cited judgments concern separate provisions of the regulation in question, 
their scope of application appears to overlap.  
12 In its judgment in Case C-261/15, the Court pointed out that from the language of 
Article 6(2) of Appendix A in Annex I to Regulation No 1371/2007, it follows 
that it ‘presupposes the existence of a contract of carriage concluded beforehand 
and relates only to the proof of the existence of such a contract, which must be 
confirmed by one or more tickets. The second sentence of that provision is 
directed at cases in which the rail passenger is unable to produce a ticket or the 
ticket is irregular and provides, in those cases, that the existence and validity of 
the contract of carriage are not affected, without specifying the rules in 
accordance with which the contract of carriage must be concluded. In particular, 
the absence of a ticket referred to in the second sentence may be interpreted only 
as meaning that a contract of carriage has been concluded beforehand and that the 
passenger is unable to produce proof that he has purchased a ticket, if it is not to 
deprive the first sentence of that provision of any practical effect. […] It follows 
that Article 6(2) of Appendix […] cannot be interpreted as governing the 
conditions for the formation of a contract of carriage. […] In those circumstances, 
it must be concluded that Article 6(2) of Appendix A in Annex I to Regulation 
No 1371/2007 cannot be interpreted as governing the conditions for the formation 
of a contract of carriage, those conditions being governed by the relevant national 
provisions. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question 
referred is that the final sentence of Article 6(2) of Appendix A in Annex I to 
Regulation No 1371/2007 must be interpreted as not precluding national 
provisions which lay down that a person making a train journey while not in 
possession of a ticket for that purpose, who fails to regularise his situation within 
the periods laid down in those provisions, does not have a contractual relationship 
with the railway undertaking.’ 
13 Similarly, in his Opinion in Joined Cases C-349/18 to C-351/18, the Advocate 
General, analysing the provisions of Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1371/2007, and 
Article 2(a) and Article 3 of Directive 93/13, pointed out that ‘none of the 
provisions of EU law cited by the referring court defines when a legal relationship 
may be classified as a contract of carriage or the time at which a contract of 
carriage can be deemed to be concluded. Thus, it is entirely within the discretion 
DUNAJ-FINANSE 
 
7 
of the Member States to classify the nature of the legal relationship which is 
created in the situations described above. Consequently, EU law does not preclude 
the existence of national provisions which provide that a person who travels by 
train without being in possession of a valid ticket, and who does not remedy his 
situation following checks, is not bound by a contract with the rail undertaking. I 
therefore consider that Article 9(4) of Regulation No 1371/2007 and Article 2(a) 
and Article 3 of Directive 93/13 cannot be interpreted as meaning that a 
contractual legal relationship is always created between the transport company 
and the passenger. It will therefore be for the national court to ascertain, in the 
light of domestic law, whether or not a contractual relationship exists. […] In a 
case such as that described above there could well be doubts as to the existence of 
a declaration of reciprocal intent. The passenger not only decides not to purchase a 
ticket available to the public, but even when faced with another contractual offer 
on board the train, refuses to declare his intent to buy a ticket. Therefore, there can 
be doubts that, where there is unlawful conduct such as that described above, there 
may be an appropriate exchange of reciprocal intent which could constitute a 
contract. The passenger did not declare his agreement to an essential element of 
the contract, that is to say the price of the service and the payment thereof.’ 
14 The referring court therefore notes that in his Opinion, the Advocate General 
proposed that an answer analogous to that in the judgment in Case C-261/15 be 
given. In the light of the above, the referring court holds the view that a provision 
of national law providing that a passenger who boards a train without first 
purchasing a ticket does not become a party to a contract of carriage is 
permissible. Thus, Article 16(1) of the Transport Law, which contains precisely 
that provision, is compatible with the provisions of Regulation No 1371/2007. 
15 On the other hand, in its judgment in Joined Cases C-349/18 to C-351/18, the 
Court gave a different answer, without referring to the Advocate General’s 
Opinion in that case or to the earlier judgment in Case C-261/15. As regards the 
wording of Article 3(8) of Regulation No 1371/2007, the Court indicated that ‘it 
should be noted, firstly, that the word “contract” is generally understood to 
designate an agreement by consensus intended to produce legal effects. Secondly, 
in the context of the field covered by that regulation and in the light of the 
wording of that provision, that effect consists principally in the obligation 
imposed on the rail undertaking to provide to the passenger one or more transport 
services and the obligation imposed on the passenger to pay the price of that 
transport, unless the service is provided free of charge. It follows therefore from 
the findings in the previous paragraph that, on the one hand, by allowing free 
access to its train and, on the other hand, by boarding that train with an intention 
to travel, both the rail undertaking and the passenger demonstrate their agreement 
to enter into a contractual relationship, so that the conditions necessary for 
establishing the existence of a transport contract are, in principle, satisfied. The 
wording of Article 3(8) of Regulation No 1371/2007 however does not allow it to 
be determined whether the possession, by the passenger, of a ticket is essential for 
the purposes of considering that there exists a “transport contract” within the 
meaning of that provision. […] In so far as a passenger who does not produce a 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-530/22 
 
8  
valid ticket or refuses to immediately pay for a ticket, in accordance with Article 9 
of Appendix A of the COTIF, included in Annex I to Regulation No 1371/2007, 
the general conditions of carriage may be relied upon against that passenger, and 
in so far as those conditions, according to Article 3(16) of that regulation, read in 
conjunction with Article 3(2) thereof, form, for the purposes of that regulation, an 
integral part of the transport contract between the rail undertaking and the 
passenger by the conclusion of the latter, it follows that such an undertaking 
which allows free access to its trains and a passenger who boards such a train for 
the purposes of travel must be considered to be parties to a “transport contract”, as 
soon as that passenger is thus on board the train. Otherwise, those general 
conditions of carriage could not be relied upon against that passenger on the basis 
of Regulation No 1371/2007. It thus follows clearly from those elements that the 
ticket, referred to in Appendix A as a “ticket”, is only the instrument which 
embodies the transport contract, for the purposes of Regulation No 1371/2007. 
The wording of Article 3(8) of Regulation No 1371/2007 and the context of that 
provision, consequently, allow it to be considered that the concept of “transport 
contract”, within the meaning of that provision must, for the purposes of that 
regulation, be understood as being independent from the possession, by the 
passenger, of a ticket and in the sense that it covers a situation in which a 
passenger boards a freely accessible train for the purposes of travel without having 
obtained a ticket. That interpretation is supported by the objectives pursued by 
Regulation No 1371/2007. Firstly, in accordance with Article 1(a) thereof, the 
purpose of that regulation is, in particular, to establish rules concerning the 
conclusion of transport contracts. Secondly, recital 1 of that regulation points out 
in particular that, in the context of the common transport policy, it is necessary to 
safeguard the rights of rail passengers. Moreover, it follows from recital 2 of that 
regulation that a high level of consumer protection in the field of transport must be 
achieved and, according to recital 3 thereof, since the rail passenger is the weaker 
party to the transport contract, his rights in this respect should be safeguarded. It 
would be contrary to those objectives to consider that the concept of “transport 
contract”, for the purposes of Regulation No 1371/2007, must be interpreted as 
not covering a situation in which a passenger boards a freely accessible train for 
the purpose of travel without having obtained a ticket. If it were permissible to 
consider that such a passenger can, on the sole ground that he does not have a 
ticket when he boards a train, be regarded as not being a party to a contractual 
relationship with the rail undertaking which grants free access to its trains, that 
passenger could, in circumstances beyond his control, be deprived of the rights 
that that regulation attaches to the conclusion of a transport contract, which would 
undermine the objective pursued by that regulation of protecting rail passengers 
and which is noted in recitals 1 to 3 thereof. Moreover, in the absence of 
provisions in that regard in Regulation No 1371/2007, such an interpretation is 
without prejudice to the validity of that contract or the consequences which could 
result from the non-performance, by one of the parties, of its contractual 
obligations, which, in the absence of provisions in that regard, remain governed 
by the applicable national law. In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, 
the answer to the first question is that Article 3(8) of Regulation No 1371/2007 
DUNAJ-FINANSE 
 
9 
must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which a passenger boards a 
freely accessible train for the purposes of travel without acquiring a ticket comes 
within the concept of “transport contract” for the purposes of that provision.’ 
16 In view of the above, the referring court is of the opinion that the present question 
needs to be referred to the Court in order to clarify in which situations the 
judgment of the Court in Case C-261/15 applies, and in which situations the 
judgment of the Court in Joined Cases C-349/18 to C-351/18 applies. Adopting an 
interpretation of the contract of carriage that is in line with the latter judgment 
would mean that provisions of national law (including Article 16(1) of the 
Transport Law) which provide that there can be no contract of carriage between a 
carrier and a passenger who boarded a train but failed to purchase a ticket or had 
no intention of purchasing a ticket are incompatible with the provisions of 
Regulation No 1371/2007. Resolving the above dilemma is directly relevant to the 
outcome of the present case as well as thousands of other cases with analogous 
facts. 
17 At the same time, however, the referring court wishes to point out that there are 
important arguments for considering such provisions of national law to be 
incompatible with the provisions of Regulation No 1371/2007. Although those 
arguments do not unequivocally resolve the issue at hand, the proposed solution is 
supported, in the view of the referring court, by the principle of effectiveness, 
since the main purpose of enacting the above regulation, as stated in its recitals 1, 
2, 3 and 17, and also emphasised by the Court in its judgment in Joined Cases 
C-349/18 to C-351/18, was to ensure a high level of protection and safety for 
passengers, who are the weaker party to a transport contract. If passengers of a 
certain category were not considered parties to a contract of carriage, some of the 
provisions of Regulation No 1371/2007 would not apply to them, which would in 
turn nullify in part the purpose of that regulation as well as the purpose of 
Article 169(1) TFEU and Article 38 of the Charter.  
18 Moreover, in the view of the referring court, the distinction between the legal 
standing of two categories of passengers, that is, those with a ticket and those 
without a ticket, appears to contradict the principle of equality before the law, 
which is a cornerstone of EU law, enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter as well as 
in the first sentence of Article 32(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. 
If the primary purpose of the regulation in question is to guarantee a high level of 
protection for passengers, it is difficult to understand why that high level of 
protection should be lower for passengers without a ticket; since those passengers 
are charged a regular fare as well as the applicable penalty fare, there is no 
rational justification for them to suffer further negative consequences. Moreover, 
in the view of the referring court, it would be unjustified to conclude that in such a 
situation, they would enjoy the protection of Regulation No 1371/2007 free of 
charge: either at the carrier’s expense or indirectly at the expense of other 
passengers. In addition, if a passenger who boarded a train without purchasing a 
ticket in advance were not considered a party to a contract of carriage, he or she 
could not as a result be considered a consumer under other provisions of EU law, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-530/22 
 
10  
such as Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13, Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/83, or 
Article 2(2) of Directive 2019/771. Thus, his or her legal position would be 
weakened still further, even though he or she is the weaker party vis-à-vis the 
carrier just as a consumer who is in possession of a ticket. For instance, a 
passenger who failed to purchase a ticket and was consequently charged a grossly 
inflated additional charge could not raise the plea that the general terms and 
conditions of carriage establishing such a high charge are unfair, since Article 6(1) 
of Directive 93/13 does not apply to persons who are not parties to contracts. 
19 Finally, the referring court notes that provisions analogous to Regulation 
No 1371/2007 are present in regulations such as Regulation No 1177/2010 and 
Regulation No 181/2011. In particular, the definition of a contract of carriage 
contained in Article 3(8) of Regulation No 1371/2007 is analogous to that in 
Article 3(m) of Regulation No 1177/2010 and Article 3(c) of Regulation 
No 181/2011. Similarly, recitals 1 and 2 of the two cited regulations indicate that 
the passenger is the weaker party to the transport contract, which justifies 
providing passengers with an adequate level of protection. The structure and 
wording of all the cited provisions justify the conclusion that they reflect the 
general objective of the EU legislature, which is to treat passengers of any means 
of mass transportation as a special category of consumers who require an adequate 
level of protection. In view of the above, the principle of consistency of EU law 
also requires that a passenger travelling without a ticket be considered a party to 
the contract of carriage, since a different conclusion would make it impossible to 
achieve that goal. 
20 In view of its previous observations, the referring court proposes that the Court 
answer the question referred in the affirmative, since finding that a passenger who 
has boarded a train without the intention of purchasing a ticket is not a party to a 
contract of carriage and is therefore not a consumer would greatly limit the scope 
of protection afforded to such a passenger under Regulation No 1371/2007 and 
under other provisions of EU law, which would be contrary to the purpose of 
those provisions, and would also result in an inconsistency between the provisions 
of EU law.