In its most recent ruling on air passenger rights, the European Court of Justice addressed the issue of jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention regarding a claim for damages against an airline for the loss of a piece of luggage during a domestic flight.
The case involved a dispute between a Spanish airline and a Spanish passenger whose luggage was lost on a flight from Madrid to Barcelona. It should also be noted that the flight was booked through an online sales platform, while a contract for the carriage of the baggage was concluded directly at the airport.
The court hearing the claim for damages against the airline questioned its jurisdiction and referred three questions to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. First, whether Article 3(1) of the Regulation on the Liability of Air Carriers in the Event of Accidents (Regulation 2027/97) is to be interpreted as meaning that Article 33 of the Montreal Convention also applies to a purely domestic flight. Furthermore, the issue at hand was whether, in the case of a contract concluded online, the passenger’s permanent residence constitutes the “place where the air carrier has its principal place of business” within the meaning of Article 33(2) of the Montreal Convention. In addition, given the two contracts at issue—one concerning the booking of the flight and the other concerning the carriage of baggage—the question arose as to whether the “place where the air carrier’s place of business is situated” refers to the place of the contractual agreement regarding the principal service or that of the ancillary service.
Regarding the first question, the CJEU held that Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention establishes not only judicial jurisdiction but also territorial jurisdiction. According to the CJEU, the wording does not, in principle, suggest that purely domestic flights fall within the scope of application, as it expressly refers to “international carriage.” However, according to the ruling, this narrow scope of application was expanded by Article 1 of Regulation 2027/97, such that Article 33 of the Montreal Convention now also applies to domestic flights within the European Union. Consequently, the court has jurisdiction over the claim for damages pursuant to Article 1 in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation 2027/97, even in the context of domestic air transportation.
Beyond that, the ECJ stated that neither the wording nor the structure nor the purpose of Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention permits the traveler’s permanent residence to be deemed the venue in the event of a claim for damages arising from the loss of baggage. This is particularly true because it would run counter to the objectives of the provision—predictability and legal certainty—if the air carrier had to anticipate being sued in any location worldwide where its online services are available.
With regard to the third question, it was decided that the contract for the carriage of the passenger is decisive for the venue of an action for damages against the air carrier for the loss of baggage, even if that contract was concluded at a location other than where the contract for the carriage of the baggage was concluded.