AG Frankfurt; 2017-12-28; 30 C 1431/17 (25)
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:AGFFM:2017:1228.30C1431.17.25.00
Date: 2017-12-28
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82017DE1228(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The case concerns the international jurisdiction of a German court for a claim for compensation for the flight delay of a Colombian air carrier which neither has a premises, registered office, or staff in Germany (hereinafter ‘the defendant’). A passenger traveling from Frankfurt am Main via Madrid and Bogota to Armenia (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) applied for the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to order the defendant to pay compensation to the plaintiff for the delay of the flight from Madrid to Bogota. The defendant contested the international jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
The Court of First Instance agreed with the defendant and dismissed the action as inadmissible. It ruled out the application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) establishing international jurisdiction. Article 4(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) does not form the basis of jurisdiction as the defendant has neither a registered office, central administration nor a principal place of business in Germany or any other EU Member State. Nor does jurisdiction derive from Articles 17 to 19 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) since the rule relating to the consumer's place of residence does not apply to contracts of transport. Therefore, jurisdiction under Article 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is governed by national law.
The Court of First Instance subsequently declared that territorial jurisdiction is also not established in accordance with German law. Jurisdiction does not follow from Article 21 ZPO (2) since the defendant has no establishment in Germany. Jurisdiction also does not follow from Article 29(1) ZPO since the place of performance of the service conforming to the agreement is not Frankfurt am Main. The places of performance of the contractual service are the places of departure and arrival of a flight. The flight from Frankfurt am Main to Madrid was operated by airlines other than the defendant and the Court of First Instance found no contractual connection with the airline in question and the defendant. For that reason, the flights from Frankfurt am Main to Madrid and from Madrid via Bogota to Armenia are considered as two separate flights, of which the disputed flight started in Madrid and ended in Armenia. Therefore, the Court of First Instance declared its international incompetence and dismissed the action.
(1) 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.
(2) Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure).