A consumer having booked a trip abroad may sue the organiser before the court of the place of his or her domicile (ECJ)

As ruled by the Judgment of the Court of EU in Case C-774/22 (29.7.2024) (FTI Touristik), a consumer having booked a trip abroad may sue the organiser before the court of the place of his or her domicile. This is also true where the consumer and the organiser are domiciled in the same Member State.

A consumer residing in Nuremberg (Germany) concluded a contract for a trip abroad with the tour operator FTI Touristik, which has its registered seat in Munich (Germany). Considering himself to have been inadequately informed of the entry conditions and necessary visas, the consumer brought an action for damages against FTI Touristik before the Local Court, Nuremberg. FTI Touristik contends that that court does not have territorial jurisdiction. 

In particular, the ‘Brussels Ia’ Regulation on jurisdiction [1] [2], does not apply where the two parties are domiciled in the same Member State. The Local Court, Nuremberg submitted a question to the Court of Justice on that point. 

The Court replies that the ‘Brussels Ia’ regulation is applicable even in the case where the consumer and the tour operator are domiciled in the same Member State, whereas the destination of the trip is located abroad. That international element is sufficient for the regulation to apply. 

Nonetheless, in relation to actions brought by a consumer against his or her contracting partner, that regulation is not limited to determining international jurisdiction. It also determines territorial jurisdiction in that it directly confers that jurisdiction on the court for the locality of the consumer’s domicile. It thus ensures that the consumer, as the weaker party, can bring an action against the stronger party before an easily accessible court. (source: curia.europa.eu/photo: freepik.com)

The full text of the decision is available here

_____________

1 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. 

2 The general rule of jurisdiction laid down in that regulation attributes jurisdiction to the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled. However, according to the rule of special jurisdiction for consumer contracts, the consumer may sue his or her contracting partner either before the courts of the Member State in which the latter is domiciled, or before the court of the place where the consumer is himself or herself domiciled.

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld her find
Read more

Gigantic fine for unfair practices imposed on Booking.com by the Competition Authority of Hungary

Image
One of the highest fines for violation of unfair competition law has been imposed (28/4/2020) on online hotel booking platform ‘’Booking.com’’ by the Hungarian Competition Authority. The amount of the fine (approximately EUR 6 million / HUF 2.5 billion) imposed by the Authority illustrates the seriousness of the Dutch company's violations. The Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) imposed a fine of HUF 2.5 billion on the operator of the online booking portal booking.com, and at the same time banned the Dutch company from continuing its aggressive sales methods. According to the decision of the competition authority, Booking.com B.V. engaged in unfair commercial practices against consumers by, among other things, misleadingly advertising some of its accommodations with a free cancellation option and exerting undue psychological pressure on consumers to make early bookings. As a result of the Competition Authority’s competition supervision proceeding  initiated in 2018, the autho
Read more

ECHR President: Covid-19 pandemic has raised a number of important human rights issues

Image
Increased polarisation and challenges to Europe’s fundamental principles, together with the global COVID-19 pandemic, are likely to create the most difficult period we have seen in many years, according to the President of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Speaking at the court’s annual press conference in Strasbourg, ECHR President Robert Spano said that democracy, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law are increasingly being called into question at both the European and global levels. He added that the on-going pandemic has already raised a number of important human rights issues, including the proportionality of measures taken by Council of Europe member states, the legal basis of those measures and the use of domestic procedures to sanction actions or inaction. President Spano underlined that the ECHR has been able to continue its work despite the pandemic, deciding on over 39,190 applications in 2020 and holding online public hearings for the first time.
Read more

The name Pablo Escobar may not be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-255/23 (Escobar v EUIPO) the name Pablo Escobar may not be registered as an EU trade mark. The public would associate that name with drug trafficking and narco-terrorism.  On 30 September 2021, Escobar Inc., established in Puerto Rico (United States), filed an application with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for registration of the word sign Pablo Escobar as an EU trade mark for a wide range of goods and services.  The Colombian national named Pablo Escobar, who was born on 1 December 1949 and died on 2 December 1993, is presumed to be a drug lord and a narco-terrorist who founded and was the sole leader of the Medellín cartel (Colombia).  EUIPO rejected the application for registration on the ground that the mark was contrary to public policy and to accepted principles of morality. It relied on the perception of the Spanish public, as it is the most familiar with Pablo Escobar due to the links between Spa
Read more

European Court of Human Rights refuses request for advisory opinion from High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has refused the request for an advisory opinion (no. P16-2024-001) received from the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania (“the High Court”) on 27 February 2024.  The request was submitted in the context of an appeal pending before the High Court, concerning the confiscation of a sum of money from a civil servant following an audit of her assets by the National Integrity Agency (Agenția Națională de Integritate – “the ANI”).  The Romanian authorities had considered that the civil servant – who belonged to one of the 39 categories of individuals working in the public sector who were required to declare their assets and interests – had been unable to prove the source of the money, which had been confiscated following an audit of her income.  The High Court requested the European Court to give an opinion on two questions concerning the interpretation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to the pr
Read more

Airbnb is not required to hold an estate agent’s professional licence as it did not notify the Commission of that requirement in accordance with the Directive on electronic commerce

Image
ECJ: Airbnb case- France cannot require Airbnb to hold an estate agent’s professional licence as it did not notify the Commission of that requirement in accordance with the Directive on electronic commerce. By its judgment of 19 December 2019, Airbnb Ireland (C-390/18), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice held, first, that an intermediation service which, by means of an electronic platform, is intended to connect, for remuneration, potential guests with professional or non-professional hosts offering short-term accommodation services, while also providing a certain number of services ancillary to that intermediation service, must be classified as an ‘information society service’ under Directive 2000/31 on electronic commerce. [1] Secondly, the Court found that, in criminal proceedings with an ancillary civil action, an individual may oppose the application to him or her of measures of a Member State restricting the freedom to provide such a service which that indiv
Read more