Case C-94/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — European order for payment procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — Articles 17 and 20 — Obligations of a court seised in order to designate the court with territorial jurisdiction to hear contentious proceedings following the defendant’s opposition to the European order for payment — Competence of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Debt arising from the right to compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on account of a flight delay)
Date: 2016-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, claim, indemnification, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2016156EN.01000301.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/3






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-94/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European order for payment procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - Articles 17 and 20 - Obligations of a court seised in order to designate the court with territorial jurisdiction to hear contentious proceedings following the defendant’s opposition to the European order for payment - Competence of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Debt arising from the right to compensation under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on account of a flight delay))
(2016/C 156/03)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Flight Refund Ltd

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Operative part of the judgment

EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances where a court is seised of a procedure, such as that in the main proceedings, concerning the designation of the court of the Member State of origin of a European order for payment having territorial jurisdiction and examines, in those circumstances, the international jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State to hear the contentious proceedings concerning the debt which gave rise to such an order for payment, against which the defendant has entered a statement of opposition within the time-limit prescribed for that purpose:






—


since Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure does not provide any indications as to the powers and obligations of that court, those procedural questions continue, pursuant to Article 26 of that regulation, to be governed by the national law of that Member State;










—


Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters requires the question of the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment to be decided by application of procedural rules which enable the effectiveness of the provisions of that regulation and the rights of the defence to be guaranteed, whether it is the referring court or a court which the referring court designates as the court having territorial and substantive jurisdiction to hear a claim such as that at issue in the main proceedings under the ordinary civil procedure which rules on that question;










—


if a court such as the referring court rules on the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin of the European order for payment and finds that there is such jurisdiction in the light of the criteria set out in Regulation No 44/2001, that regulation and Regulation No 1896/2006 require such a court to interpret national law in such a way that it permits it to identify or designate a court having territorial or substantive jurisdiction to hear that procedure, and,










—


if a court such as the referring court finds that there is no such international jurisdiction, that court is not required of its own motion to review that order for payment by analogy with Article 20 of Regulation No 1896/2006.






(1)  
            OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.