Flight Refund (Judgment) [2016] EUECJ C-94/14 (10 March 2016)

Flight Refund (Judgment) [2016] EUECJ C-94/14 (10 March 2016)

Regulation No 1896/2006 does not harmonise national procedural law regarding the designation of the competent court after opposition to a European order for payment; such matters are governed by national law, subject to the requirements of Regulation No 44/2001 to ensure effectiveness and rights of defence. If international jurisdiction exists under Regulation No 44/2001, national law must allow identification or designation of a competent court. If not, there is no obligation to review the order ex officio by analogy with Article 20 of Regulation No 1896/2006.

Citation
[2016] EUECJ C-94/14
Parties
Applicant: Flight Refund Ltd; Respondent: Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
10 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling / Judgment on Reference
Outcome
Questions answered; guidance provided to referring court.
Legal Topics
European Order for Payment, Jurisdiction, Cross Border Litigation, Flight Delay Compensation, Interpretation of EU Regulations
European Union Law Civil Procedure Private International Law European Order for Payment Jurisdiction Cross Border Litigation Flight Delay Compensation Interpretation of EU Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flight Refund Ltd

Applicant

Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling / Judgment on Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a European order for payment issued without proper international jurisdiction can be subject to ex officio review or must be discontinued after opposition
  2. 2 Which rules govern the designation of the competent court after opposition to a European order for payment based on Regulation No 261/2004

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation No 1896/2006 does not harmonise national procedural law regarding the designation of the competent court after opposition to a European order for payment; such matters are governed by national law, subject to the requirements of Regulation No 44/2001 to ensure effectiveness and rights of defence. If international jurisdiction exists under Regulation No 44/2001, national law must allow identification or designation of a competent court. If not, there is no obligation to review the order ex officio by analogy with Article 20 of Regulation No 1896/2006.

Court Disposition

Questions answered; guidance provided to referring court.

Orders

  • Procedural questions not governed by Regulation No 1896/2006 are subject to national law.
  • International jurisdiction must be determined under Regulation No 44/2001, ensuring effectiveness and rights of defence.