Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:311
Date: 2019-04-11
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Anonymised version 
Translation C-464/18 — 1 
Case C-464/18 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
17 July 2018 
Referring court: 
Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.º 1 de Gerona (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
9 July 2018 
Applicant: 
ZX 
Defendant: 
Ryanair, D.A.C. 
  
JUZGADO DE LO MERCANTIL  
NÚMERO 1 DE GERONA (Commercial Court Number 1, Gerona, Spain) 
[...] 
SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE [...] 
[...] 
Applicant 
ZX 
[...] Barcelona 
Spain 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9.7.2018 — CASE C-464/18 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
[...] 
Defendant: 
RYANAIR, D.A.C 
[...] Dublin 
Ireland 
ORDER 
[…] 9 July 2018 
FACTS 
FIRST.– Ms ZX, a Peruvian national, acting in her own name and representing 
herself, lodged a claim under the simplified procedure against the commercial 
entity RYANAIR, D.A.C. In accordance with [Or. 2] Article 58 of Ley 1/2000, de 
7 de enero, de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law 1/2000 of 7 January on Civil 
Procedure), the Secretario Judicial (official performing certain duties in 
connection with the proceedings) [...] asked the parties who had entered an 
appearance and the Ministerio Fiscal (State Attorney General) for their views on 
whether this court has international jurisdiction to hear the action. 
SECOND.– The Secretario Judicial remitted the case-file for a ruling, indicating 
that only the Ministerio Fiscal had responded to that request and had lodged 
observations, submitting that, under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012, the courts of 
Oporto (Portugal) or Barcelona (Spain) have jurisdiction on the basis of the place 
of performance of the contract, since this is not a case of exclusive jurisdiction. It 
stated, however, that inasmuch as the defendant did not argue a lack of 
international jurisdiction in its defence, the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.º 1 de 
Gerona (Commercial Court No 1, Gerona) should make an order allowing the 
action to proceed because it is possible that it has jurisdiction under the rule of 
implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in Article 26(1) of Regulation 
No 1215/2012. 
LAW 
FIRST.– Subject-matter of the main proceedings and relevant facts 
1. The applicant sued the airline RYANAIR, D.A.C., which has its registered 
office in Ireland, claiming, in accordance with the judgment of the Court of 
Justice of the European Union of 19 November 2009, the sum of EUR 250 by way 
of compensation, bringing the action provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 
No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 
RYANAIR 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the 
event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. 
2. – The applicant, a Peruvian national who is not domiciled or resident in 
Spain, […], [Or. 3] brought the claim before the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de 
Gerona (Commercial Court, Gerona), a city in which the airline has established a 
branch, in connection with flight FR4586 of 11 December from Oporto airport to 
Barcelona. 
SECOND.– Relevant legal provisions 
1. In Spain, claims brought under the legislation governing national or 
international transport are heard at first or sole instance by the commercial courts, 
which are civil courts specialising in certain civil and commercial matters within 
the area of civil law (Article 86ter (2)(b) of Ley Orgánica 6/1985, de 1 de julio, 
del Poder Judicial (Organic Law 6/1985 of 1 July on the Judiciary)). 
2. As regards civil and commercial proceedings, the different types of 
declaratory proceedings are governed by the Law […] on Civil Procedure. Since 
there is no substantive limitation which determines the type of action to be 
brought in matters relating to transport, claims brought in relation to such matters 
are dealt with using the ordinary procedure or the simplified procedure, depending 
on the amount of the claim. Where the claim in the proceedings does not exceed 
EUR 6 000, Article 250(2) of the Law on Civil Procedure provides that it must be 
dealt with according to the rules governing the simplified procedure. In 
accordance with Article 455(1) of the Law on Civil Procedure, no appeal lies 
against judgments given in cases heard under the simplified procedure on the basis 
of the amount claimed, where that amount is less than EUR 3 000, and therefore 
the declaratory proceedings will be sole-instance proceedings. 
3. The simplified procedure is a flexible, simple procedure intended for non-
complex cases, in which, although the procedure is based on the principles of 
immediacy, orality and centralisation, judgment may be given after the lodging of 
the application and the defence if the parties do not request that a hearing be held. 
4. – The provisions governing territorial jurisdiction for the simplified 
procedure are mandatory. In accordance with Article 52(2) and (3) of the Law on 
Civil Procedure, ‘as regards [contracts for] the provision of [Or. 4] services’ […] 
‘the conclusion of which was preceded by a public offer’ or ‘where individual 
actions are brought by consumers or users’, jurisdiction lies, at the choice of the 
person who accepted the offer or the consumer or user, with the court of the place 
where one of the latter is domiciled or, if the defendant is a legal person, with the 
court for the place where it is domiciled. Pursuant to Article 51, legal persons may 
be sued ‘in the place where the situation or legal relationship to which the 
proceedings refer arose or will produce effects, provided that they have in that 
place an establishment open to the public or a representative authorised to act on 
behalf of the entity.’ 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9.7.2018 — CASE C-464/18 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
5. An applicant will be deemed to have tacitly submitted to jurisdiction where 
he has brought proceedings before the courts of a particular district by lodging the 
application, whilst the defendant will be deemed to have done so where, after 
entering an appearance in the proceedings, he performs any procedural step other 
than lodging an objection to jurisdiction in due form. The defendant will also be 
deemed to have tacitly submitted where, having been given notice or been 
summoned in due form, he does not enter an appearance in the proceedings or 
does so when the right to object to jurisdiction has become time-barred (Article 56 
of the Law on Civil Procedure). 
6. In accordance with Article 54(2) of the Law on Civil Procedure, ‘express or 
implied prorogation shall [not] be valid in cases which have to be decided using 
the simplified procedure’. 
7. The extent and limits of the jurisdiction of Spanish civil courts are 
determined by the provisions of the Organic Law on the Judiciary and the treaties 
and international conventions to which Spain is a party, while Article 36(2)(3) of 
the Law on Civil Procedure provides that ‘the Spanish civil courts shall refrain 
from hearing cases brought before them … where the defendant has been given 
notice in due form but does not enter an appearance in cases in which the 
international jurisdiction of the Spanish courts may be based solely on the implied 
prorogation of jurisdiction by the parties’. 
8. In accordance with Article 404, in conjunction with Article 58, of the Law 
on Civil Procedure, where the Secretario Judicial responsible [Or. 5] for the 
procedural and substantive organisation of the proceedings becomes aware, while 
examining the admissibility of the action, that the court may lack international 
jurisdiction, he shall notify the court so that it may rule on whether the action is 
admissible or inadmissible after hearing the parties who have entered an 
appearance and the Ministerio Fiscal. 
Under Article 38 of the Law on Civil Procedure, ‘a court shall decline jurisdiction 
... of its own motion, after hearing the parties and the Ministerio Fiscal, as soon 
as the lack of international jurisdiction is identified ...’ 
9. Since the action brought is based on the right to compensation laid down in 
Regulation (EC) No 261/04 and this court is of the view that international legal 
jurisdiction is to be determined by 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, it 
considers it necessary to make the present reference for a preliminary ruling to the 
Court of Justice in order to clarify the correct interpretation of certain provisions 
of that regulation. 
10. Specifically, since the defendant is a company domiciled in Ireland and the 
departure and arrival airports of the flight concerned are not situated in the judicial 
district of this court, there is no doubt that this court does not have international 
RYANAIR 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
jurisdiction under the general rule that jurisdiction lies with the courts of the 
Member State of the defendant’s domicile and or under the alternative rule for 
actions brought in matters relating to a contract, based on the place of departure or 
arrival. However, for the purposes of deciding whether to decline jurisdiction to 
hear a case (Article 28(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) by means of a final 
decision, which either brings the proceedings to an end or allows the case to 
proceed and judgment to be given on the substance, it is necessary to obtain a 
correct interpretation, in relation to the case at issue, of Article 26 [of Regulation 
No 1215/12], with regard to the concept of implied prorogation, and of 
Article 7(5), as regards the alternative jurisdiction based on the place where the 
branch of an airline is situated in proceedings relating to its operation. [Or. 6] 
THIRD — Reasoning on which the decision is based 
1. The international carriage by air of persons is governed by a uniform body 
of rules laid down by convention which, however, did not provide for situations 
involving the total breach of a contract for passenger transport. Nevertheless, in 
the light of the desire to increase the level of protection for passengers, and given 
the difficulty in agreeing a new international convention in that area, rules laying 
down minimum rights for passengers in the event of denial of boarding against 
their will, cancellation of flights or delayed flights were introduced within the 
European Union by means of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004. 
2. Although the wording of Article 71 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 created 
uncertainties regarding the application of the rules on jurisdiction laid down in 
Article 33 of the Montreal Convention, the judgment of the Court of Justice 
(Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2009, Rehder (C-204/08, EU:C:2009:439, 
paragraphs 26 to 28), made clear that, in cases such as this, in which the claim in 
the proceedings is based exclusively on Regulation No 261/2004, jurisdiction 
must be determined by reference to the provisions laid down in Regulation 
No 44/2001, which has now been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012 […]. 
3. In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, it follows from a reading 
of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 that it provides for a system of multiple fora 
and that possible conflicts of jurisdiction are to be resolved by means of a 
hierarchy of courts. Jurisdiction based on subject-matter and jurisdiction based on 
the defendant’s domicile yield to the exclusive forum rules which grant 
international jurisdiction to the courts of other Member States and also yield 
where the parties submit to the jurisdiction of courts of other Member States. [Or. 
7] 
4. Since there is no exclusive jurisdiction for matters relating to contracts for 
the international carriage by air of persons, in the absence of express or implied 
prorogation by the parties, the court with jurisdiction to hear disputes arising as a 
result of a contract will be determined either in accordance with the general rule 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9.7.2018 — CASE C-464/18 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
on jurisdiction (domicile of the defendant) or, as the case may be, in accordance 
with the special rule of jurisdiction for bringing proceedings in matters relating to 
a contract. 
5. Like the other special rules of jurisdiction –– which constitute an exception 
to the general rule that jurisdiction lies with the courts of the defendant’s domicile 
and are based on the principles of the ‘proper administration of justice’ and 
‘proximity’, concerning a close link between the dispute and the court –– the rule 
of jurisdiction for matters relating to a contract is a rule of ‘challenge’, since it 
grants the applicant the right to sue the defendant in the courts of a State other 
than the State in which the defendant has its seat. As the Court of Justice (Third 
Chamber) clarified in the judgment of 7 March 2018, [flightright and Others 
(C-274/16, C-447/16 and C-448/16, EU:C:2018:160)], the special rule of 
jurisdiction for matters relating to a contract covers the claim for compensation 
provided for in Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, while the judgment of 9 July 2009, 
Rehder, C-204/08: EU:C:2009:439, paragraphs 43 and 47, held that, for direct 
flights, both the place of arrival and the place of departure of the aircraft constitute 
the connecting factor provided for in Article 7(1)(b) with regard to ‘the place in a 
Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should 
have been provided’. 
6. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, a directly applicable piece of legislation, 
lays down rules on jurisdiction, assigning jurisdiction to the courts of a Member 
State as a whole. In other words, where the international jurisdiction of a Member 
State is established in accordance with a rule of jurisdiction, the specific court 
with territorial competence must be determined under national law. However, that 
system of pure jurisdiction rules would appear to apply solely with regard to the 
rules of exclusive jurisdiction and the general rule of jurisdiction based on the 
defendant’s domicile, such that two exceptions exist: 
(a) The rules on jurisdiction laid down in Articles 7 to 22 of the Brussels I 
bis Regulation which designate not only the Member State with [Or. 
8] international jurisdiction but also the court directly competent. 
(b) Rules on express and implied prorogation which allow the parties to 
assign international and territorial jurisdiction to particular courts of a 
Member State; this is one of the aspects which the request for a 
preliminary ruling seeks to clarify. 
7. Having outlined the system of forum rules, as it is understood by the 
referring court, for the purpose of evaluating admissibility and replying to the 
request for a preliminary ruling, it is necessary to explain the reasons why this 
court considers that the interpretation of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012 by the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Spanish procedural 
law, will determine whether this court has international legal jurisdiction to hear 
the case. 
RYANAIR 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
8. As already noted, since the defendant, RYANAIR, D.A.C., is domiciled in a 
Member State (Ireland) and neither the departure airport nor the arrival airport for 
the flight are situated in the judicial district of the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de 
Gerona (Commercial Court, Gerona), where the application was lodged, this court 
lacks international jurisdiction under the general rule that jurisdiction is based on 
the defendant’s domicile, laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1215/2012, and [also under] the special rule of jurisdiction for matters relating 
to a contract laid down in Article 7(1). However, bearing in mind that if, contrary 
to the prohibition of implied prorogation in simplified procedures laid down in 
Article 54(1) of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, it were appropriate to allow 
the action to proceed, and given that the airline has a branch in the city of Gerona, 
in the light of the interpretation of Articles 26 and 28, together with that of 
Article 7(5), of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, this court might have 
international jurisdiction as a result of implied prorogation or under the special 
rule of jurisdiction of the court of the place where the branch is situated. 
• Implied prorogation of jurisdiction[Or. 9] 
9. Provided that the proceedings do not fall within one of the cases of exclusive 
jurisdiction laid down in Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, which are 
linked to the sovereignty of each Member State and in which the parties are not 
[permitted] to accept the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State other than the 
State whose courts have exclusive jurisdiction, the parties, exercising their free 
will, may determine international jurisdiction. 
10. There are many reasons why express or implied prorogation of jurisdiction 
has various advantages for the parties and for States, such as the centralisation of 
proceedings in the same court, the reduction of costs, efficiency, and also choice 
of the best court (better court perspective), which [increase] the quality of justice. 
That is why Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 promotes the rule of prorogation of 
jurisdiction and, as regards implied prorogation, lays down few restrictions as to 
substance and form. 
11. However, unlike Article 25 of the Regulation, which makes the substantive 
validity of the agreement conditional on that agreement not being ‘null and void’ 
under the law of the Member State to which the parties submit, the rules 
governing implied prorogation in Article 26 do not provide for such a limitation 
under national law. 
12. Accordingly, all that Article 28 requires for there to be international 
jurisdiction through implied prorogation is that the defendant be domiciled in a 
Member State and that he enter an appearance after an action has been brought 
against him. According to Article 26, the sole limits or exceptions are: (a) where 
the defendant enters an appearance in order to contest jurisdiction, and (b) where 
another court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24. [Or. 10] 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9.7.2018 — CASE C-464/18 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
13. In a dispute like that which has given rise to the present request for a 
preliminary ruling, where, in accordance with the Law on Civil Procedure, the 
action must be heard under the simplified procedure, the rule of express 
prorogation of jurisdiction would not apply since Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 
makes the substantive validity of an agreement regarding express prorogation 
conditional on that agreement not being null and void under the national law of 
the Member State concerned and, under Article 54 of the Law on Civil Procedure, 
‘express … prorogation shall [not] be valid in cases which have to be decided 
using the simplified procedure’. 
14. However, under Article 54 of the Law on Civil Procedure, that restriction 
also applies to implied (tacit) prorogation of jurisdiction in relation to the 
simplified procedure. In that connection, since Article 26 of Regulation 
No 1215/2012 does not refer expressly to national law and, therefore, the 
Community legislature cannot be taken to have intended that issue to be resolved 
under the procedural law of the Member States, and bearing in mind that the 
declining of jurisdiction to hear the case under Article 54 of the Law on Civil 
Procedure could ‘lead to frustration of the principles laid down’ in relation to 
implied prorogation of jurisdiction, ‘whether expressly or by implication’, by the 
regulation ([paragraph] 21 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 October 
1985, [Capelloni and Aquilini, (119/84, EU:C:1985:388)]), this court considers it 
necessary to clarify the correct interpretation of the concept of implied 
prorogation provided for in Article 26 of the regulation. 
15. The current version of Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 makes a 
firm commitment to the rule of implied prorogation of jurisdiction since, in 
keeping with the case-law laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 
20 May 2010, Blias (C-111/09, EU:C:2010:290), implied prorogation is also 
permitted in areas subject to special protection. However, where one of the parties 
is in a weak position (an insured person, a consumer or an employee), the court is 
required to ensure that the defendant has been informed of his right to [Or. 11] 
contest the jurisdiction of the court and of the consequences of entering or not 
entering an appearance. 
16. It is apparent that, within the scope of the regulation, a defendant is deemed 
to have tacitly accepted jurisdiction if he enters an appearance before a court of a 
Member State, provided that he does not do so for the purpose of contesting 
jurisdiction. The defendant’s appearance is therefore an essential requirement. 
Where he has entered an appearance but has not contested international 
jurisdiction, a Spanish court will declare that it has jurisdiction, in accordance 
with Article 26, whereas, if the defendant does not enter an appearance, the court 
must examine of its own motion, in accordance with Article 28, whether it has 
international jurisdiction and, where necessary, it must declare that it cannot hear 
a case if its jurisdiction is not based on the regulation. 
17. Implied prorogation under Regulation No 1215/2012 is a concept which 
must receive an autonomous and uniform interpretation, as the Court of Justice 
RYANAIR 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
has repeatedly held (inter alia, judgment of 15 November 2012, Gothaer 
Allgemeine Versícherung and Others (C-456/11, EU:C:2012:719), paragraph 25, 
and, specifically on tacit prorogation, judgment of 27 February 2014, Cartier 
parfums-lunettes and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance, (C-1/13, 
EU:C:2014:109)). Therefore, as certain specific aspects, such as the way of 
submitting to jurisdiction by merely entering an appearance, are regulated, 
Spanish courts cannot hold that a defendant has accepted jurisdiction simply 
because he has failed to enter an appearance, as Article 56 of the Spanish Law on 
Civil Procedure currently provides, and must examine whether they have 
international jurisdiction in the light of the provisions of the regulation. In that 
connection, although Community case-law allows the principle lex fori regit 
processum, [paragraph] 20 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 October 
1985, Capelloni and Aquilini, 119/84, EU:C:1985:388, holding that ‘the 
Convention leaves the matter of resolving any question not covered by specific 
provisions of the treaty to the procedural law of the court hearing the 
proceedings’, [Or. 12] the referring court takes the view that it is not the intention 
of the Community legislature to make it possible to limit the rule of prorogation of 
jurisdiction in certain national proceedings. 
18. Unlike Article 25, which provides, in relation to express prorogation, that 
the substantive validity of the agreement is conditional on that agreement not 
being null and void under the law of the Member State concerned, meaning that, 
under Article 56 of the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure, express prorogation is 
not possible in the simplified procedure, Article 26, which governs implied 
prorogation, makes no reference to national law. Accordingly, taking the view that 
national law should be disapplied on the basis of the primacy of EU law, or, more 
properly, taking the view that international jurisdiction should be determined 
exclusively under Regulation (EU) No 1215/12, the referring court, in the terms 
proposed by the Spanish Ministerio Fiscal, believes that implied prorogation of 
jurisdiction would be appropriate in the simplified procedure even though it is not 
permitted under the Spanish Law on Civil Procedure. 
19. The referring court is aware that, if its view were correct, the answer to the 
question could be considered to be clearly apparent from the case-law of the Court 
of Justice of the European Union. However, judicial practice demonstrates that 
EU law is not being interpreted and applied uniformly in relation to the concept of 
implied prorogation governed by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. Therefore, to 
make it possible to bring the provisions of national law into line with EU law, this 
court takes the view that it is necessary to make a reference for a preliminary 
ruling so that the Court [Or. 13] of Justice can provide the correct interpretation. 
20. Further, in order to resolve the question as to whether the referring court 
should hold that it has international jurisdiction under the regulation and should 
give judgment, this court requires clarification of the scope of tacit prorogation of 
jurisdiction. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9.7.2018 — CASE C-464/18 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
It is clear from reading the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 that, 
regardless of the fact that a court may have jurisdiction based on another forum 
rule, there is no requirement that there must be an objective link between the 
dispute and the designated court, although it is necessary for the defendant to be 
domiciled in a Member State (judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 July 1997, 
Benicasa (C-269/95, EU:C:1997:337)). However, it is unclear whether or not the 
rule of implied prorogation of jurisdiction is a ‘pure’ rule of international 
jurisdiction. In other words, it is unclear whether all that the parties can do is 
tacitly agree that the courts of a Member State can hear the case, with the question 
of which specific court may be seised of the dispute being determined under the 
procedural law of the Member State, or, as the case may be, whether it is a rule 
allocating both international jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction. 
21. The issue is of particular importance for the purpose of adjudicating on the 
dispute in relation to the proceedings concerned, given that, on account of the type 
of contract or the fact that the applicant is a consumer or user, this Juzgado de lo 
Mercantil de Gerona (Commercial Court, Gerona) lacks territorial jurisdiction 
under the mandatory rules of jurisdiction laid down in the Spanish Law on Civil 
Procedure (Article 52(2) and (3)). Specifically, that is because the requirements 
laid down in Article 51(1) of the Law on Civil Procedure, to the effect that the 
legal relationship must be entered into or must take effect in the city of Gerona 
and [Or. 14] [the defendant] must have an establishment open to the public or a 
representative authorised to act on its behalf there, are not met. Accordingly, it is 
necessary to refer a question in order to clarify that point, given that, although the 
Spanish version of Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 215/2012 does not appear to 
limit the parties’ right to choose the court with territorial jurisdiction, that could be 
a matter which is not considered to warrant a uniform interpretation common to 
all the Member States and is thus reserved to national procedural law. 
Special rule that jurisdiction lies with the court for the place where the 
branch is situated. Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/12 
22. The hierarchical system for determining jurisdiction, laid down in the 
regulation, means that the national court, after establishing that no court has 
exclusive jurisdiction (Article 22) and that there has been no implied (Article 26) 
or express prorogation (Article 25), must examine whether its jurisdiction may be 
based on any of the special grounds of jurisdiction or on the general rule of 
jurisdiction based on the defendant’s domicile (Article 4). 
23. If it is decided that this court cannot establish that is has jurisdiction based 
on the rule of implied prorogation or that, in the light of the reply from the Court 
of Justice, the action should be allowed to proceed but the defendant fails to enter 
an appearance or contests jurisdiction, the international jurisdiction of this court 
can be based only on the special rule of jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(5), 
since the general rule of jurisdiction based on the defendant’s domicile and the 
special rule in matters relating to a contract (Article 7(1)) do not apply. 
Article 7(5), provides that ‘[a] person domiciled in a Member State may be sued 
RYANAIR 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
in another Member State … as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a 
branch, agency or other establishment …’ That jurisdiction is concurrent with that 
based on the defendant’s domicile and the remaining [Or. 15] special grounds of 
jurisdiction. 
24. As regards that rule of jurisdiction, the judgment of the Court of Justice of 
22 November 1978, Somafer (33/78, EU:C:1978:205), stated –– albeit in 
connection with Article 5 of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 (the 
wording of which is identical to the current wording of Article 7(5) of Regulation 
(EU) No 1215/2012) –– that an interpretation was required which was 
autonomous and, therefore, common to all the Member States, and set out in detail 
what is to be understood by branch, agency and establishment, and operations 
related to a dispute. 
25. That judgment held that it is for the court seised of the case to examine 
whether sufficient evidence exists but stipulated that a branch, agency or other 
establishment constitutes a place of business which presents itself in a permanent 
manner as the extension of a parent body, is easily recognisable as a result of 
signs, has a management and is materially equipped to negotiate business with 
third parties. As regards the concept of operations, the judgment held that disputes 
must concern obligations which have been entered into in the name of the parent 
undertaking and which must be performed in the contracting State where the place 
of business is established. 
26.  [Paragraph] 8 of that judgment held that the special link justifying the 
option granted to the plaintiff by way of exception to the general rule of 
jurisdiction based on the defendant’s domicile can be identified through the 
particular facts which exist either in the relations between the parent body and its 
branches, agencies or other establishments or in the relations between one of the 
latter entities and third parties. In that connection, the Opinion of Advocate 
General Sharpston in Flight Refund (C-94/14, EU:C:2015:723) [Or. 16](in which 
the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) gave judgment on 10 March 2016) pointed 
out that, naturally, in the case of international carriage by air, a particular ground 
for the connecting factor would be that the ticket was bought from such a branch, 
agency or other establishment. 
27. However, although those criteria make it straightforward to determine, in 
relation to the international carriage of passengers by air, whether the connecting 
factor required by Article 7(5) of the Regulation exists, that was possible when 
airline tickets were purchased in branches. That is not possible in today’s world 
where airline reservations and ticket purchases are usually made online via 
websites which, as in the present case, are administered in another Member State 
by the parent company. 
28. The rule of jurisdiction based on the place where the branch is situated 
satisfies, in principle, the criterion of foreseeability for the parties which informs 
the special rules of jurisdiction laid down in the regulation, but, as has been seen, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9.7.2018 — CASE C-464/18 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
the dispute in question is required to have a special link with the operations of the 
branch, and a broad, multiform interpretation of the exceptions to the general rule 
of jurisdiction based on the defendant’s domicile (Article 4) is not permitted. 
29. And therein lies the problem, for, although the ancillary activities of the 
branch in the Member State are identical to those which it hypothetically carried 
out when tickets were purchased in travel agencies or branches, now that tickets 
are bought online via a platform administered by the parent undertaking, there is 
no obligation entered into by the place of business [Or. 17] which the branch 
constitutes, as regards its own operations or in the name of the parent undertaking. 
In that connection, it is necessary to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary 
ruling a question of interpretation in those terms, in order to shed light on whether, 
even though the passenger purchased the ticket directly from the parent 
undertaking, which is domiciled in another Member State and which operates the 
flight, in the light of the ancillary services (which in this case appear to be 
confined to fiscal matters) which it generally provides, a branch established in the 
Member State where the obligation is to be performed can be a sufficient 
connecting factor for this dispute to be considered to relate to the operations of a 
branch, as provided for in the special rule of jurisdiction in Article 7(5) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. 
OPERATIVE PART 
In the light of the foregoing considerations, this court decides to refer the 
following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 
preliminary ruling: 
(1) Does the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and 
governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 require, in all 
respects, an autonomous interpretation common to all the Member States, 
which cannot, therefore, be made subject to limitations laid down in 
Member States’ rules on domestic jurisdiction? 
(2) Is the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and 
governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 a ‘pure’ rule of 
international jurisdiction, which determines exclusively the courts [Or. 18] 
of a particular Member State but leaves it to the procedural law of that 
Member State to specify the court with territorial jurisdiction or, on the other 
hand, is it a rule of both international and territorial jurisdiction? 
(3) In the light of the facts of the case, can a situation involving a flight which is 
operated by an airline domiciled in another Member State, but which departs 
from or arrives in a Member State where that airline has a branch providing 
ancillary services to the airline but through which the tickets were not 
purchased, be deemed to constitute a dispute arising out of the operations of 
a branch, agency or other establishment, which is the basis for the 
RYANAIR 
 
13 
Anonymised version 
connecting factor for the ground of jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(5) of 
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012? 
The proceedings are stayed pending the judgment of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union in relation to the request for a preliminary ruling. 
[…] [Or. 19] […]