On 18 November 2020, the Court of Justice held its judgment in Case C-519/19, Ryanair DAC v DelayFix, on the interpretation of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 and of Directive 93/13/EEC. The reference has been made in proceedings between Passenger Rights sp. z o.o. (“Passenger Rights”), now DelayFix, a company specialised in the recovery of claims, and the airline Ryanair DAC (“Ryanair”) concerning the payment of the sum of EUR 250 as compensation for the cancellation of a flight on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.

Passenger Rights has requested the Sąd Rejonowy dla m. st. Warszawy w Warszawie (District Court for the Capital city of Warsaw) to order the airline Ryanair to pay a sum of EUR 250 in compensation for the cancellation of a flight between Milan (Italy) and Warsaw (Poland), a passenger of that flight having assigned the company such a claim with respect to that airline. By contrast, Ryanair alleged that the general terms and conditions of carriage, to which that passenger agreed when he purchased his ticket online, provided for the jurisdiction of the Irish courts, thereby binding Passenger Rights as well. The District Court for the Capital city of Warsaw, however, rejected Ryanair’s plea of lack of jurisdiction, considering that the clause in the contract of transport between that passenger and the airline was unfair, and that Passenger Rights, as the assignee of the passenger’s claim following the cancellation of the flight, could not be bound by such a clause.

Therefore, Ryanair brought an appeal before the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie, XXIII Wydział Gospodarczy Odwoławczy (Regional Court, Warsaw, Commercial Appeals Division No 23; the “referring court” ) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, decided to stay the proceedings and to ask the Court of Justice whether Article 25 of Regulation No 1215/2012 and Article 2(b), Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of contesting the jurisdiction of a court to hear an action for compensation on the basis of Regulation No 261/2004 and brought against an airline, a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a contract of carriage between a passenger and that airline can be enforceable by the latter against a collection agency to which the passenger has assigned the claim.

Provided that a contract concluded online is not, in itself, able to invalidate a jurisdiction clause, according to the Court such a clause incorporated in the contract of carriage between a passenger and an airline cannot be enforced by the latter against a collection agency to which the passenger has assigned the claim in order to contest the jurisdiction of a court to hear an action for compensation on the basis of Regulation No 261/2004 brought against the airline, unless the third party had succeeded to an original contracting party’s rights and obligations in accordance with national substantive law. In any case, a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier that was not subject to an individual negotiation, and which confers exclusive jurisdiction to the courts in whose territory that seller or supplier is based, must be considered as unfair if, contrary to requirement of good faith, it causes significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

Marco Stillo