CJEU clarifies jurisdiction for claims based on Air Passenger Rights Regulation and Montreal Convention

Michael Wukoschitz's picture

Following a delay of flights operated by easyJet the applicants in the main proceedings, who are domiciled in Rome (Italy), brought an action before the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Rome District Court, Italy) seeking an order that easyJet pay the compensation referred to in Articles 5, 7 and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 and compensate for further material damage and non-material damage resulting from easyJet Airline’s failure to fulfil its contractual obligations.

Upon request for preliminary ruling, the CJEU clarfied that Article 7(1), Article 67 and Article 71(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 and Article 33 of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Member State hearing an action to obtain both compliance with the flat-rate and standardised rights provided for in Regulation No 261/2004, and compensation for further damage falling within the scope of the Montreal Convention, must assess its jurisdiction, for the first head of claim, in the light of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, and, for the second head of claim, in the light of Article 33 of that convention.

Further to that, Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted, as regards actions for damages falling within the scope of that convention, as governing not only the allocation of jurisdiction as between the States Parties to the convention, but also the allocation of territorial jurisdiction as between the courts of each of those States.

Case: C-312/18 - Guaitoli; full text of judgement available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?docid=220359&text=&dir=&doclang=EN&part=1&occ=first&mode=req&pageIndex=0&cid=929226

 

X