Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:101
Date: 2020-02-13
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport;Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Translation C-606/19 – 1 
Case C-606/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
12 August 2019 
Referring court: 
Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
31 July 2019 
Applicant: 
Flightright GmbH 
Defendant: 
IBERIA LAE SA Operadora Unipersonal 
      
Amtsgericht (Local Court), Hamburg 
[...] 
Order 
In the case of 
Flightright GmbH, [...] 
[...] Potsdam 
Applicant: 
[...] 
against 
IBERIA LAE SA Operadora Unipersonal, [...] Madrid, Spain 
Defendant: 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 31. 7. 2019 – CASE C-606/19 
 
2  
[…] 
the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Local Court, Hamburg) hereby orders [...] on 31 July 
2019: 
I. The proceedings are stayed. 
II. Pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, the following questions concerning the 
interpretation of Articles 3, 5 and 7 of 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1), are referred to the Court 
of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
1. Does the referring court have international jurisdiction, where 
connecting flights [Or. 2] constitute a whole, two different 
Community air carriers performed the individual connecting flights 
and the referring court only has international jurisdiction for the 
connecting flight not affected by a cancellation? 
2. Do both air carriers performing the connecting flights constituting a 
whole have the capacity to be sued where two Community air carriers 
performed the connecting flights? 
Grounds 
1. A. The assignors booked connecting flights constituting a whole under the single 
booking reference M8LNZW for 25 August 2018, with the first connecting flight 
with flight number BA969 from Hamburg to London (Heathrow) to be performed 
by British Airways from 13.55 to 14.40, the second connecting flight with flight 
number IB518 from London (Heathrow) to Madrid to be performed by the 
defendant from 15.50 to 19.15 and the last connecting flight with flight number 
IB8324 from Madrid to San Sebastian to be performed by the defendant from 
20.00 to 21.15. The assignors arrived on time at Hamburg airport; they and their 
luggage were checked in at Hamburg airport for all connecting flights [...] and 
they flew initially as far as Madrid on the first two connecting flights. The final 
connecting flight was cancelled, which was not communicated to the assignors in 
due time. There were no extraordinary circumstances justifying the cancellation. 
The assignors took the replacement flight offered to them from Madrid to San 
Sebastian on the following day and landed in San Sebastian with a delay of 14 
hours and 48 minutes. The distance from Hamburg to San Sebastian is 
approximately 1 433 km. The assignors effectively assigned their rights under the 
aforementioned circumstances to the applicant. 
2. On the basis of the rights assigned to it, the applicant sought payments totalling 
EUR 500.00 in compensation pursuant to Article 7(1)(a) and Article 5(1)(c) of 
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
FLIGHTRIGHT 
 
3 
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 (‘the Regulation’). The 
defendant refused to pay the compensation to the applicant. [Or. 3] 
3. B. The decision depends on whether the referring court has international 
jurisdiction where connecting flights constitute a whole, two different Community 
air carriers performed the individual connecting flights and the referring court 
only has international jurisdiction for the connecting flight not affected by the 
cancellation and on whether both air carriers performing the connecting flights 
constituting a whole have the capacity to be sued where two Community air 
carriers performed the connecting flights. 
4. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1)(a) of the Regulation, the applicant 
may claim a payment of EUR 250.00 in compensation for each assignor from the 
defendant because the connecting flights constitute a whole, the last connecting 
flight was cancelled, which was not communicated to the assignors in due time, 
and there were no extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) 
of the Regulation. The connecting flights constitute a whole within the meaning of 
the case-law of the Court of Justice: Under Article 2(h) of the Air Passenger 
Rights Regulation, ‘final destination’ means the destination on the ticket presented 
at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the 
destination of the last flight. It follows from the term ‘last flight’ that the concept 
of ‘directly connecting flight’ must be understood as referring to two or more 
flights constituting a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for 
passengers provided for in Regulation No 261/2004 (judgment of 31 May 2018, 
C-537/17, paragraph 18 [...]). In accordance with the case-law of the Court of 
Justice, the connecting flights constitute a whole where there is a confirmed single 
booking for all connecting flights and there were boarding cards for the entire 
journey on departure (cf. judgment of 26 February 2013, C-11/11, paragraphs 16 
and 18; [...] judgment of 31 May 2018, C-537/17, paragraphs 5 and 6; [...] and 
judgment of 11 July 2019, C-502/18, paragraph 16 [...]), both of which can be 
affirmed here according to the undisputed facts of the case. 
5. The defendant is therefore not obliged to pay compensation to the applicant only 
if the referring court does not have international or local jurisdiction or the 
defendant does not have the capacity to be sued. This cannot be decided by the 
referring court without first requesting the Court of Justice of the European Union 
to deliver a preliminary ruling on the questions set out in the operative part of the 
present order. 
6. I. Accordingly, the decision depends on whether the referring court [Or. 4] has 
international jurisdiction where connecting flights constitute a whole, two 
different Community air carriers performed the individual connecting flights and 
the referring court only has international jurisdiction for the connecting flight not 
affected by the cancellation. Should the referring court – despite the connecting 
flights constituting a whole – not have international jurisdiction because that court 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 31. 7. 2019 – CASE C-606/19 
 
4  
does not have international or local jurisdiction for the connecting flight affected 
by the cancellation – in turn because that flight’s departure and arrival airports 
(Madrid and San Sebastian) clearly do not fall within the jurisdiction of the 
referring court – the action would have to be dismissed (cf. Bundesgerichtshof 
(Federal Court of Justice) in its request of 18 August 2015 [...]; not decided by the 
Court of Justice: Court information of 2 May 2016, C-533/15, Celex No 
62015CB0533). 
7. II. The decision also depends on whether both air carriers performing the 
connecting flights constituting a whole have the capacity to be sued where two 
Community air carriers performed the connecting flights. If only one of the air 
carriers performing the connecting flights has the capacity to be sued – in this case 
possibly British Airways, which is the air carrier that performed the first 
connecting flight – the claim would also have to be dismissed.  This matter has not 
yet been decided by the Court of Justice because, in its judgment of 11 July 2019, 
the air carrier performing the first connecting flight, which had its departure 
airport in the jurisdiction of the referring court, had the capacity to be sued in 
respect of all the connecting flights constituting the whole, but the other air carrier 
was not sued by the passengers, nor was it a Community air carrier, with the result 
that the Court of Justice had no reason to examine whether that other air carrier 
could have had the capacity to be sued in respect of all the connecting flights 
constituting a whole (cf. judgment of 11 July 2019, C-502/18, paragraph 16 [...]). 
[...]