Case C-515/25, Mekanova: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 July 2025 – NL, represented by AG and EN v Wizz Air Hungary Ltd.
Date: 2025-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: branch, contract, injunction, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_202505812EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5812


10.11.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 July 2025 – NL, represented by AG and EN v Wizz Air Hungary Ltd.


(Case C-515/25, Mekanova
                (1)
)

(C/2025/5812)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NL, represented by AG and EN

Defendant: Wizz Air Hungary Ltd.

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 7(1)(a) and (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (2) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (‘Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012’):, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that it lays down binding provisions on the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States within the European Union which cannot be precluded by national legal provisions governing specific types of simplified procedures, such as the order for payment procedure, for which specific conditions for the jurisdiction of national courts are also laid down? If the question is answered in the affirmative, do those provisions require that a judgment which has already been delivered must be set aside, or do they preclude its setting aside, even where an attempted unlawful choice of court is suspected?










2.


Regardless of the answer to the first question, is Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, in accordance with the judgment of 11 April 2019, Ryanair DAC, C-464/18, (3) to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘branch, agency or other establishment’ is an independent concept of EU law and, if so, what is its meaning in relation to the requirement regarding the conclusion of a contract within the scope of the establishment’s operation?










3.


If the first question is answered in the negative – meaning that the aforementioned provisions are not binding – and the first part of the second question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, in conformity with the judgment of 13 November 1990, Marleasing, C-106/89, (4) to be interpreted as meaning that national legal provisions which provide for jurisdiction based on the existence of a ‘place of business’ in a particular Member State are to be interpreted in accordance with the interpretation given by the Court of Justice of the European Union to the term ‘branch, agency or other establishment’?










4.


Is Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate on claims brought against a branch, agency or other establishment, it regulates not only the allocation of jurisdiction between the Member States of the European Union, but also the allocation of local jurisdiction between the courts of each individual State?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  
            OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

(3)  ECLI:EU:C:2019:311.

(4)  ECLI:EU:C:1990:395.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5812/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)