Brussels –Buying a plane ticket online does not mean that the court in the passenger’s place of residence has jurisdiction to hear a claim for compensation for lost baggage, the Court of Justice of the EU said, intervening in the rules governing jurisdiction in disputes over lost luggage. The case concerns a passenger residing in Fuenlabrada, near Madrid, who purchased a ticket online for a Madrid–Barcelona flight operated by Vueling Airlines via an independent platform. At the airport in Madrid, she added baggage handling, and her luggage was subsequently lost. The passenger sought compensation before the court in Fuenlabrada, but the Spanish court asked the Court of Justice to clarify which court had jurisdiction.
The Court first of all ruled that the Montreal Convention – the international treaty governing the liability and compensation of airlines in the event of damage to passengers, baggage or cargo during international flights between signatory States – also applies where the flight connects two airports in the same Member State, provided the dispute concerns a passenger resident in that State and an EU airline established in the same country. The main issue, however, concerned the place where to bring the claim. Among the criteria set out in the Convention is the place where the carrier has an establishment which concluded the contract of carriage.
The passenger argued that, since she had concluded the contract online from her home, this place could be regarded as her place of residence. The Court rejected this interpretation: the passenger’s residence cannot be regarded as the place where the airline’s place of business is situated simply because the contract was concluded online. The judges also clarified that the transport of baggage, being an ancillary service, does not constitute a separate contract for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. The relevant contract remains the one for the passenger’s transport, even when the damage concerns only the baggage.
The judgment does not, therefore, establish that the passenger is not entitled to compensation. It simply states that the judge may not have jurisdiction to hear the case. It will instead be up to the Spanish court to apply the principles laid down by the Court of Justice and to rule on the dispute. The judgment was delivered in response to a reference for a preliminary ruling: the mechanism through which national courts can ask the Court of Justice to interpret EU law. The Court’s response is binding on the national court in this specific case.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
