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

Popular posts from this blog

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...
Read more

Fully-funded PhD position in AI, Law and Public Power

Image
Erasmus University Rotterdam School of Law, department Law & Markets, is looking for a fulltime PhD researcher in AI, Law and Public Power (4,5 years with 20% teaching tasks). PhD AI, Law and Public Power Are you curious about how artificial intelligence is changing state actor powers? Do you want to conduct critical and in-depth legal research at the intersection of technology, law and power? And would you like to combine that with academic teaching? Then this PhD position at Erasmus School of Law is for you. Within the Law & Markets team, you will spend 4.5 years researching the legal regulation of AI in the public sector. How do we protect fundamental rights when algorithms help decide on who receives public benefits, how to perform enforcement or how to enact environmental policy? What is the role of the state, and where is the limit of government power in a data-driven society? You will have plenty of space to choose your own research angle and work in a multidisci...
Read more

The Delivery Delay Clause in Residential Construction Contracts: Consumer Protection in Cyprus and Europe

Image
By Giorgos Kazoleas, LL.M., Lawyer, Managing Partner at Legal Experts Cyprus The purchase or construction of a new residence is one of the most significant financial and personal decisions a consumer can make. Residential construction contracts or agreements for the sale of property under construction are a crucial and defining element of the entire process, as certain terms they may contain can be detrimental to the buyer. One of the most critical aspects is the contractual delivery time of the project and the provision for delay, through the so-called delivery delay clause. The Delivery Delay Clause: Its Role and Legal Nature The delivery delay clause (also known as a penalty clause in the event of default) is a term usually included in the contract that specifies a predetermined compensation amount that the contractor or seller must pay to the buyer for every day, week, or month of delay beyond the agreed delivery date. The purpose of the clause is twofold: -Compensatory: ...
Read more

More than a third of ECHR's judgments since its establishment concerned Turkey, Russia & Italy

Image
The document "The ECHR in facts and figures 2020" has been published on the Court’s website. Αccording to the report, approximately 62,000 applications were pending before a judicial formation of ECHR at 31 December 2020. Neerly a quarter of these applications had been lodged against the Russian Federation. The number of applications allocated to a judicial formation in 2020 exceeded the number disposed of judicially during the year. Almost half the judgments concerned 3 of the 47 member States, namely the Russian Federation (185), Turkey (97) and Ukraine (86). Nearly a quarter of all the judgments delivered by the Court concerned the Russian Federation. Of the total number of judgments delivered in 2020, the Court found at least one violation of the Convention by the respondent State in 87% of the cases. Since the Court was established in 1959, the Court has delivered 23,406 judgments. More than a third of them have concerned 3 member States: Turkey (3,742), the Russian Fede...
Read more

Greece is ordered to pay financial penalties for failing to comply with a 2014 judgment of the Court of Justice

Image
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-368/24 /Commission v Greece (Enforcement of the judgment on the Zakynthos landfill). Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations: Greece is ordered to pay financial penalties for failing to comply with a 2014 judgment of the Court of Justice. Greece is ordered to pay the European Commission a periodic penalty payment of €12 500 for each day of delay until the 2014 judgment has been complied with and a lump sum of €5 500 000 In the 2014 Commission v Greece judgment, [1] the Court held that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under two directives on waste. [2] [3]  Greece had not put an end to the use of a landfill in the Zakynthos National Maritime Park, the habitat of the ‘Caretta caretta’ sea turtle, even though the landfill was overfull and its malfunction represented a danger to health and the environment. With regard to the present case, an exchange of correspondence took place between the European Commission and Greece...
Read more

Processing of personal data: decisions taken by a supervisory authority in the context of the indirect exercise of the rights of the data subject are legally binding (ECJ)

Image
According to Judgment (16.11.2023) of the European Court of Justice in Case C-333/22 (Ligue des droits humains) as regards the processing of personal data, decisions taken by a supervisory authority in the context of the indirect exercise of the rights of the data subject are legally binding. A court must be able to verify the grounds and the evidence on which they are based.  A citizen requests the Belgian autorité nationale de sécurité (National Security Authority) to issue him, for professional purposes, security clearance. He is refused that document on the ground that he had participated in demonstrations. Relying on his right of access to his data, that citizen makes a request to the Organe de contrôle de l’information policière (the Supervisory Body for Police Information), which informs him that he has only indirect access and that it will itself verify the lawfulness of the processing of his data. However, at the end of that verification, as allowed under Belgian law, that...
Read more

Sentencing of the applicant for having insulted the President of the Republic in Facebook posts : Turkey violated Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression)

Image
In Chamber's judgment (19/10/2021) in the case of Vedat Şorli v. Turkey (application no. 42048/19) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the sentencing of the applicant to a term of imprisonment – with delivery of the judgement suspended for five years – for insulting the President of the Republic, on account of two posts which he shared on his Facebook account. The content comprised, among other things, a caricature and a photograph of the President of the Republic accompanied by satirical and critical comments concerning him.  The judgment convicting the applicant was based on Article 299 of the Criminal Code, which afforded a higher level of protection to the President of the Republic than to other persons. The Court found in particular as follows.  - There had been no justification in the present case for Mr Şorli’s placement ...
Read more