Case C-94/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 27 February 2014 — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2014-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, competition, indemnification, international transport, jurisdiction, special procedure








C_2014142EN.01002201.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 27 February 2014 — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-94/14)
2014/C 142/30
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Flight Refund Ltd

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Questions referred







1.


Is it possible to pursue a claim for compensation based on Article 19 of the Montreal Convention in the context of the European order for payment procedure?










2.


In relation to a compensation claim based on Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, are the competence of a notary — treated as a national court — who is authorised to issue a European order for payment, and the competence of a court after proceedings have become contentious once the defendant has lodged a statement of opposition, determined by the jurisdictional rules contained in Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (‘Regulation No 1896/2006’), Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (2) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 44/2001’) and/or by the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air made in Montreal on 28 May 1999 (‘the Montreal Convention’)? How do these rules of law interrelate?










3.


In the event that the jurisdictional rules of the Montreal Convention prevail, can the claimant opt to pursue his claim before a court established in a State Party, even where there is no additional connecting factor, or must the court where his claim is pursued have territorial jurisdiction under the procedural rules of the Member State concerned?
In addition, how should the optional jurisdictional rule under the Montreal Convention be interpreted, which refers to the court in the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract was made?










4.


Can a European payment order which has been issued in breach of the purpose of the regulation or by an authority which does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae be the subject of an ex officio review? Or must the contentious proceedings following the lodging of a statement of opposition, where there is a lack of jurisdiction, be discontinued ex officio or on request?










5.


To the extent that the Hungarian courts have jurisdiction to hear the contentious proceedings, do the national rules of procedure need to be interpreted, in accordance with European Union law and the Montreal Convention, as meaning that they necessarily appoint at least one court which, even where there is no additional connecting factor, is obliged to hear the substance of the contentious proceedings arising from the lodging of a statement of opposition?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.