- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-464/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Gerona — Spain) — ZX v Ryanair DAC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Determination of the court having jurisdiction to hear an application for compensation in respect of a delayed flight — Article 7(5) — Operations of a branch — Article 26 — Implied prorogation — Requirement that the defendant enter an appearance)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0464
62018CA0464
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
17.6.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 206/17
(Case C-464/18) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Determination of the court having jurisdiction to hear an application for compensation in respect of a delayed flight - Article 7(5) - Operations of a branch - Article 26 - Implied prorogation - Requirement that the defendant enter an appearance)
(2019/C 206/21)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: ZX
Defendant: Ryanair DAC
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 7(5) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute concerning a claim for compensation brought under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, and directed against an airline, established in the territory of another Member State, on the ground that that company has a branch within the territorial jurisdiction of the court seised, without that branch having been involved in the legal relationship between the airline and the passenger concerned.
2.Article 26(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as not applying in a case, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where the defendant has not submitted observations or entered an appearance.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.