- 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-519/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2020 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Ryanair DAC v DelayFix, formerly Passenger Rights (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Contract of transport by air — Jurisdiction clause agreed to by the passenger as a consumer — Claim made by the passenger against the airline — Assignment of that claim to a collection agency — Enforceability of the jurisdiction clause by the airline against the assignee company of that passenger’s claim — Directive 93/13/EEC)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0519
62019CA0519
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
25.1.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 28/8
(Case C-519/19) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Contract of transport by air - Jurisdiction clause agreed to by the passenger as a consumer - Claim made by the passenger against the airline - Assignment of that claim to a collection agency - Enforceability of the jurisdiction clause by the airline against the assignee company of that passenger’s claim - Directive 93/13/EEC)
(2021/C 28/11)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Ryanair DAC
Defendant: DelayFix, formerly Passenger Rights
Operative part of the judgment
Article 25 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, in order to contest the jurisdiction of a court to hear and determine an action brought for compensation under 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 against an airline, a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a contract of carriage concluded between a passenger and that airline cannot be enforced by the airline against a collection agency to which the passenger has assigned the claim, unless, under the legislation of the Member State whose courts are designated in that clause, that collection agency is the successor to all the initial contracting party’s rights and obligations, which it is for the referring court to determine. Where appropriate, such a clause, incorporated, without having been subject to an individual negotiation, in a contract concluded between a consumer, that is to say, the air passenger, and a seller or supplier, that is to say, the airline, and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts which have jurisdiction over the territory in which that airline is based, must be considered as being unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts.
(*)
Language of the case: Polish
ECLI:EU:C:2021:140
* * *
(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.