Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[JURE summary](#SM)

## JURE summary

This case, considered by the High Court of Ireland (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), concerned pre-trial applications in proceedings between Ryanair DAC (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’), an Irish airline, and two defendants: SC Vola.Ro Srl, a Romanian online travel agent (hereinafter ‘the first defendant’), and Ypsilon.net AG, a German technology provider (hereinafter ‘the second defendant’).

The central issues revolved around allegations of unauthorized ‘screen scraping’, the extraction of flight data from the plaintiff’s website, by the first defendant, facilitated by the second defendant’s services. The plaintiff claimed breaches of contract, intellectual property rights, and torts (including trespass, conversion, and passing off), seeking injunctive relief and damages. The first defendant denied wrongdoing, asserting it lawfully obtained data via the second defendant.

The second defendant contested the scope of the plaintiff’s claims, arguing that its joinder under Order 15, Rule 13 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (1) was limited to its role in supplying services to the first defendant, not its broader operations. It also challenged jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2), contending the Irish court lacked authority over claims extending beyond the first defendant’s activities. The Court of First Instance rejected this, holding that the pleadings and joinder affidavit explicitly targeted the second defendant’s general conduct, grounded in Article 7(1)(a), Article 7(2), and Article 25 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The Court of First Instance emphasized that the second defendant’s three-year participation waived jurisdictional objections.

Separately, the second defendant sought leave to amend its defence and file a counterclaim under Order 28, Rule 1(6) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, alleging the plaintiff abused its dominant market position under Article 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (3) by restricting access to flight data. The Court of First Instance granted leave, noting the counterclaim raised ‘real questions in controversy’ and aligned with judicial efficiency, as similar issues were already pleaded by the first defendant.

The second defendant had not contested jurisdiction earlier, despite opportunities, and The Court of First Instance found its strike-out application a belated collateral attack on the joinder order. The Court of First Instance also dismissed reliance on Article 8(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), as neither defendant was domiciled in Ireland.

The Court of First Instance refused the second defendant’s strike-out motion, preserving the plaintiff’s claims against its broader conduct, and permitted the amended defence and competition counterclaim to proceed, subject to case management directions.

---

(1) Rules of the Superior Courts.

(2) [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 (recast)](http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1215/oj).

(3) [Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union](http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/tfeu_2016/art_102/oj).

[Top](#document1)