Rehder v Air Baltic (Judgment of the European Court of Justice, 9 July 2009 Case C-204/08).
Mr Rehder bought a return flight with Air Baltic (the registered office of which is in Riga, Latvia) for travel from Germany to Lithuania (Munich-Vilnius-Munich). Thirty minutes before departure of the outbound flight from Munich, passengers were informed that the flight had been cancelled. Mr Rehder brought a claim in the German court having jurisdiction over Munich airport (Amtsgericht Erding) seeking €250 compensation under the cancellation provisions (Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1)(a)) of the Passenger Rights Regulation.
The EC Judgments Regulation Regulation
(EC) No 44/2001 lays down rules governing the jurisdiction of the courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters in the member states of the EU. The objective of the regulation is to harmonise and make predictable such rules. With respect to jurisdiction, the basic principle is that it is to be exercised by the member state in which the defendant is domiciled (Article 2 (1). Rules of special jurisdiction are set out in Article 5. In matters relating to contracts for services, claims may be brought in the place of performance, i.e. where the services were provided, or should have been provided (Article 5 (1) (b) second indent).
At first instance, the Amtsgericht Erding determined that it had jurisdiction under the EC Judgments Regulation Article 5 (1) (b) on the basis that air transport services are "provided" at the place of departure of flight. This decision was overturned on appeal by Air Baltic. The appeal court, the Oberlandesgericht Munchen, held that air transport services are "provided" at the place where the operating carrier Air Baltic has its head office (i.e. Latvia).
Referral to the ECJ
Upon appeal by Mr Rehder to the German Supreme Court on a point of law, the Bundesgerichtshof made a referral to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 5 (1) (b) of the EC Judgments Regulation in the context of a passenger claim under the regulation 261/2004. It should be noted that Mr Rehder's claim was based solely on regulation 261/2004 and that no claim was advanced under the Montreal Convention.
The ECJ confirmed that, in respect of a contract for air transport services from one member state to another member state which is made with one sole airline as the operating carrier, the court having jurisdiction to deal with a claim for compensation founded on that air transport contract and on the Passenger Rights Regulation is the court having jurisdiction over the place of departure, or over the place of arrival of the aircraft. Air carriage (i.e. the service) is provided in an "indivisible and identical manner from the place of departure to that of arrival of the aircraft", hence both places have a sufficiently close link of proximity to the material elements of the contract and are places within which a passenger can, as a matter of choice, bring his or her claim under 261/2004. The ECJ also confirmed that, in addition, claimants retain the option of pursuing a defendant air carrier in the place of the defendant's domicile (Article 2 (1)).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
