LG Frankfurt; 2016-09-15; 2-24 S 74/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGFFM:2016:0915.2.24S74.15.0A
Date: 2016-09-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82016DE0915(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case dealt with by the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) concerns the applicability of the local jurisdiction according to the place of performance in respect of compensation claims made by an air passenger (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’). The Court of Appeal asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to answer the following questions:
1. Does the term ‘matters relating to a contract’ under Article 5(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) also include a claim for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2) pursued against the operating air carrier who was not the contracting party of the respective air passenger?
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 under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is based on a problem which 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?
The plaintiff entered into a contract of carriage with a third person for the flights from Frankfurt to Paris and from Paris to Vigo as well as the respective return flights. All flights were to be carried out by an air carrier domiciled outside of Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). The return flight from Vigo to Paris was delayed and the plaintiff had to stay overnight in Paris. For this reason, the plaintiff filed an action with the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) seeking compensation. The action, however, was dismissed as inadmissible for the lack of international jurisdiction. The plaintiff challenged this decision by an appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the jurisdiction may only follow from Article 5(1)(a/b) second indent of the Brussels I Regulation as the defendant was not domiciled in Germany, the domicile of the plaintiff was not decisive for this transportation service and the delict jurisdiction was not in Germany. Due to the fact that the defendant was not the contracting party of the plaintiff and that the question of the place of performance had not been dealt with by the CJEU, the Court of Appeal approached the CJEU for clarification.
(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.
(2) 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.