EN
C 165/28
Official Journal of the European Union
19.4.2022
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 25 January 2022 — PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt.
v WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt.
(Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)
(Case C-51/22) (2022/C 165/36) Language of the case: Hungarian Referring court Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt.
Defendant: WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt.
(Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)
Question referred Must Article 5(1)(a), the first indent of Article 8(1)(a) and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) be interpreted as meaning that a passenger may exercise his or her right to reimbursement of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought directly against the air carrier, even where the passenger has booked the ticket with the help of a third party acting as an intermediary, to whom the passenger paid the ticket price, and it was the intermediary who purchased the ticket from the air carrier and who paid [the carrier] the ticket price, and there is no indication that the intermediary was acting as the authorised agent of the air carrier or that it was a tour operator?
(1)
OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 1 February 2022 — IA v DER Touristik Deutschland GmbH (Case C-62/22) (2022/C 165/37) Language of the case: German Referring court Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: IA Defendant: DER Touristik Deutschland GmbH Question referred Is Article 18(1) of 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) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to regulating international jurisdiction, the provision also lays down a rule to be observed by the adjudicating court as to the territorial jurisdiction of the national courts in matters pertaining to travel contracts where both the consumer, as the traveller, and his or her contractual partner, the tour operator, are domiciled in the same Member State, however the destination is not in that Member State but is located abroad, with the consequence that the consumer can bring contractual claims against the tour operator before the court for his or her place of domicile as a supplement to national rules?
(1)
OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.