LG Essen; 2020-07-01; 16 O 11/18
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGE:2020:0701.16O11.18.00
Date: 2020-07-01
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82020DE0701(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Several family members (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) filed an action against a company domiciled in the USA (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) and an air carried domiciled in Germany (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’) in relation to the crash of a plane flying from Barcelona to Düsseldorf seeking their own and inherited compensation for pain and suffering.
The co-pilot of the respective airplane intentionally caused the crash of the plane in the French Alps. None of the 150 passengers survived.
The co-pilot gained part of his practical training with defendant 1. Defendant 2 was the parent company of the air carrier operating the crashed plane which had already provided compensation to the respective family members.
The plaintiffs accused defendant 1 and 2 of having issued a flight fitness certificate for the co-pilot despite the fact that he had suffered from depression, which on one occasion even led to a temporary suspension of his training, which had then continued despite an expert opinion challenging his medical fitness to be a pilot.
The defendants applied for the action to be rejected claiming that the co-pilot had completely recovered from his psychological issues and that the following examinations had not suggested any doubts regarding his mental condition.
The Landgericht Essen (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), the jurisdiction of which followed from Article 26 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), rejected the action for being inadmissible. Normally, the applicable law would have been French law under Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation (2) as the primary damage had been caused during the crash in France. However, under the exception rules provided for in Article 4(3)(1) of the Rome II Regulation, German law could be applied due to a close connection of the case to Germany (3).
The Court of First Instance found that no contractual claims existed between the plaintiffs and defendant 1 and that the claimed breach of obligations on the part of defendant 1 had not been substantiated.
For similar reasons, the plaintiffs were not entitled to receive any further compensation for pain and suffering from defendant 2.
(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) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).
(3) Actions filed by German relatives of the victims of the plane crash.