Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG.
Date: 2016-03-10
40


In that regard, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance (judgments in Fish Legal and Shirley, C‑279/12, EU:C:2013:853, paragraph 30, and Verder LabTec, C‑657/13, EU:C:2015:331, paragraph 29).
45


In that regard, firstly, it is appropriate to have regard to the settled case-law of the Court, in accordance with which a passenger’s right to a standardised and lump-sum payment following a flight delay, drawn from Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, on which Flight Refund relies in the present case, is independent of compensation for damage in the context of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention (see, to that effect, judgments in Rehder, C‑204/08, EU:C:2009:439, paragraph 27, and Nelson and Others, C‑581/10 and C‑629/10, EU:C:2012:657, paragraphs 46, 49 and 55).
46


Thus, since the rights based respectively on the provisions of Regulation No 261/2004 and of the Montreal Convention fall within different regulatory frameworks, the rules on international jurisdiction provided for in that Convention do not apply to applications made on the basis of Regulation No 261/2004 alone, which must be examined in the light of Regulation No 44/2001 (see, to that effect, judgment in Rehder, C‑204/08, EU:C:2009:439, paragraphs 27 and 28).
47


Secondly, with regard to the situation referred to by the referring court, set out in paragraph 44 of the present judgment, the Court has already held that a statement of opposition by the defendant to the European order for payment, the effects of which are governed by Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006, cannot extend the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin of the order for payment, within in the meaning of Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001, and thus mean that the defendant has accepted, by entering such a statement of opposition, even if it includes statements on the substance of the case, the jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State to hear the contentious proceedings concerning the disputed claim (see, to that effect, judgment in Goldbet Sportwetten, C‑144/12, EU:C:2013:393, paragraphs 38, 41 and 43).
50


The special procedure governed by Regulation No 1896/2006 and the objectives which it pursues do not, however, apply where the debts giving rise to an order for payment are contested by way of a statement of opposition provided for in Article 16 of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgments in eco cosmetics and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen, C‑119/13 and C‑120/13, EU:C:2014:2144, paragraph 39, and Goldbet Sportwetten, C‑144/12, EU:C:2013:393, paragraphs 31 and 42).
58


In that regard, it is common ground that Regulation No 44/2001 does not seek to unify the extent of the verification obligations to which national courts are subject in the course of determining their international jurisdiction. The application of the relevant national laws must not, nevertheless, impair the effectiveness of Regulation No 44/2001 (see judgment in Kolassa, C‑375/13, EU:C:2015:37, paragraphs 59 and 60 and the case-law cited).
59


As regards the requirements to be met during the proceedings, it must be borne in mind that all the provisions of Regulation No 44/2001 express the intention to ensure that, within the scope of the objectives of that regulation, proceedings leading to the delivery of judicial decisions take place in such a way that the rights of the defence are observed (see, to that effect, G, C‑292/10, EU:C:2012:142, paragraph 47, and A, C‑112/13, EU:C:2014:2195, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).
60


In that context, it must be pointed out that both the objective of the sound administration of justice, which underlies Regulation No 44/2001, and respect for the independence of the national court in the exercise of its functions require the national court called upon to rule on the question of international jurisdiction may examine that question in the light of all the information available to it, including, where appropriate, the defendant’s allegations (see, to that effect, judgment in Kolassa, C‑375/13, EU:C:2015:37, paragraph 64).
70


In that regard, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that the possibility, provided for in Article 20 of Regulation 1896/2006, of having the order for payment reviewed applies only if the defendant has failed to enter a statement of opposition within the time-limit laid down in Article 16(2) of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment in Thomas Cook Belgium, C‑245/14, EU:C:2015:715, paragraphs 47 and 48).
71


Furthermore, in so far as a procedural situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is, as is apparent from paragraphs 55 and 56 of the present judgment, governed not by the provisions of Regulation No 1896/2006 but by national law, the provisions of that regulation, including Article 20 thereof, cannot apply, even by analogy, to that situation (see, to that effect, judgment in eco cosmetics and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen, C‑119/13 and C‑120/13, EU:C:2014:2144, paragraph 45).