Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[JURE summary](#SM)

## JURE summary

This case regards a matter of admissibility of a jurisdiction clause, brought before the Supreme Court (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’)

An Irish company Ryanair Limited (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed two separate suits in Ireland against the following companies, both of whom operate online air travel booking sites: a German company Billigfluege.de GmbH/Ticket Point Reisebüro GmbH. (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) and an English company On the Beach Limited (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’). In both cases, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants had entered into a contract online when they accessed the plaintiff’s website and violated the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights, notwithstanding the use of a publicly accessible website. In each case, the defendants claimed that the jurisdiction clause contained in terms of use of the plaintiff’s website did not apply to the defendants, but only to the final customer, i.e., the travellers and that, therefore, each defendant should be tried in the courts of their respective domicile, under the general rule of Article 2 of the Brussels I Regulation (1) and not in Ireland.

In both cases, the High Court (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) ruled that the Courts of Ireland did have jurisdiction under Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation, and that consensus had been met under EU case law interpreting this article (2). In the case of defendant 1, the Court of First Instance (High Court Judge Hannah) decided that the use of the website of Ryanair by Billigfluege implied entering into a contract and accepting the jurisdiction clause contained therein, under the terms of Article 23(1)(a) of the Brussels I Regulation. In the case of the 2nd defendant, the Court of First Instance (High Court Judge Laffoy) ruled that expression of assent to the terms and conditions of the websites of airlines and travel agencies through the clicking or ticking of a box is a practice generally and regularly followed in those commercial sectors, and that the defendant was aware of that practice, under the terms of Article 25(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).

The Supreme Court upheld both judgments, without making any decision on whether the parties had entered into a legally binding contract, only that a clear choice of jurisdiction had been made by the parties. This emerges, among others, from Case no. C-159/97 (3).

Both defendants/appellants had argued that the judges in the Court of First Instance had reached conclusions that they should not have reached because the affidavit evidence demonstrably clashed as to the issue of choice of jurisdiction in such a way as to have required them to first hear limited oral evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that neither appellant had satisfied the burden of demonstrating that either judge in the Court of First Instance had made an error in ascertaining facts from the evidence grave enough to render their respective judgment untenable.

Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the operative standard of proof in respect of a dispute over consensus as to jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation is the balance of probabilities, the same standard of proof used throughout the European Union, thereby safeguarding the principle of legal certainty.

---

(1) [Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.](http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2001/44/oj)

(2) [Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 November 2000, Coreck Maritime GmbH v Handelsveem BV and Others, C-387/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:606, paragraphs 13 and 14.](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:61998CJ0387)

[Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 December 1976, Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo e Gianmario Colzani s.n.c. v Rüwa Polstereimaschinen GmbH, C-24/76, ECLI:EU:C:1976:177, paragraph 7](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:61976CJ0024)

(3) [Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 March 1999, Societad Trasporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA v. Hugo Trumpy SpA, C-159/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:142, paragraph 48](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:61997CJ0159).

[Top](#document1)