Since the adoption of Regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rights, its compatibility with the Montreal Convention has been questioned (see e.g. case IATA, C-344/04). In a judgment issued today in the Guaitoli and Others case (C-213/18) the CJEU once again had to address how EU law impacts claims for compensations made by air passengers, when the air traffic is subject to regulation by international treaties, as well. This time it was the application of Brussels I bis Regulation (on jurisdiction) that was particularly problematic.
Facts
Passengers in this case were flying with easyJet (headquarters: UK) from Italy, where they lived, to Greece. Their flight to Greece was first delayed and eventually cancelled, and they have not been provided with any assistance (e.g. meals or drinks), reimbursement or compensation. The passengers filed a claim with the Rome District Court for compensation pursuant to provisions of Regulation 261/2004 as well as material and non-material damages following breach of contractual obligations by the air carrier. For national courts it proved problematic that part of the passengers' claim was covered by EU law and part by international law. The result of such a combined case could have been that different courts could be applicable to adjudicate over different parts of the same claim.
Short recap of the law
Art. 7 Regulation 261/2004 determines that passengers of cancelled flights may claim compensation from an operating air carrier. Such compensation may be claimed pursuant to EU law rules on jurisdiction, which used to be set by Brussels I Regulation, and now are regulated by Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation 1215/2012). Generally, in cases of claims for breach of contract, the courts for the place of performance of the obligation that has been breached would have jurisdiction (Art. 5(1)(a) Brussels I Regulation and Art. 7(1)(a) Brussels I bis Regulation). The place of performance of air transport services has been previously determined as either the place of departure or of arrival of the air plane, subject to the applicant's choice (see e.g. case Rehder, C-204/08).
Art. 12 Regulation 261/2004 allows
passengers to claim compensation for 'further damages', which are
interpreted as compensation for other damage than the loss of time. Such other damages resulting from a delay in air carriage may then be claimed pursuant to Art. 19 Montreal Convention. Article 33 Montreal Convention specifies that an action for damages pursuant to the rules of this Convention should be brought either 'before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of its principal place of business, or where it has a place of business through which the contract has been made or before the court at the place of destination'.
Main questions
1. The national court inquired which jurisdiction rules are applicable in case of such a joint claim, and whether the claim should be split and adjudicated by different courts. This is relevant as Article 33 Montreal Convention sets out its own jurisdiction rule, which differs from the rule in Article 5 Brussels I Regulation.
2. It was relevant for the national court to establish whether Art. 33 Montreal Convention, if applicable, determined allocation of jurisdiction on a Member State level, or also locally with a given Member State.
Answer
The CJEU has no doubts that the national court should indeed be determining its jurisdiction separately to claims raised within the same case on the basis of Regulation 261/2004 and separately when these are supported by the Montreal Convention (paras. 37 and 43). This follows from separate regulatory frameworks of both instruments (see also case Flight Refund, C-94/14).
In an equally straightforward answer the CJEU affirms that the Montreal Convention determines jurisdiction of courts also between the courts of a given Member State, as it follows from the wording of Art. 33 (para. 51) as well as the purpose of the rule (paras. 52-54).
Conclusion
This is not a surprising judgment, but it is a judgment that complicates the enforcement of consumer claims against air carriers. Unless a passenger chooses to sue the operating air carrier before the court of the carrier's domicile, the jurisdiction may be split between two courts. The preference is thus given to the rights of a defendant. This general procedural rule may, however, be troublesome when carriers refuse to follow their compensatory obligations flowing from EU and international law, knowing that the chances of consumers enforcing their rights (and at different courts, possibly, too!) are slim.
