This case regards a question of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts in a dispute between two natural persons domiciled in the Czech Republic (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) and an air carrier domiciled in Oman (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), which was finally resolved by the Nejvyšší soud (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’).
The plaintiffs sought compensation for a delayed flight from Munich to Bangkok operated by the defendant. They based the claim on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) and brought it before the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6 (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’). Since the flight was operated by a non-European carrier and both the departure and arrival took place outside the Czech Republic, the plaintiffs derived the jurisdiction of the Czech courts from Article 33 of the Montreal Convention, under which an action for damages may be brought before the courts for the place where the carrier ‘has a place of business through which the contract has been made’. The plaintiffs relied on this wording since the flight was booked and payed via the website www.pelikan.cz.
The Court of First Instance stated that this website serves only as intermediary and cannot be regarded as place of business of the defendant. Moreover, the company operating this website was domiciled in Slovakia. Furthermore, the Montreal Convention cannot provide a basis for jurisdiction to apply the claim under the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 as both instruments deal with different type of passengers’ compensation. The Court of First Instance declared a lack of international jurisdiction of the Czech courts and dismissed the action.
The Městský soud v Praze (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) recalled that Article 67 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) provides an option to apply also the provisions of other legal instruments (lex specialis). Thus, even the Montreal Convention may be a basis for jurisdiction in a dispute such as the present one. However, none of its jurisdictional rules justify the jurisdiction of the Czech courts. Neither the Brussels I Regulation (recast) nor the national legislation provides a basis to establish the jurisdiction of the Czech courts. The first instance conclusion was therefore upheld.
The plaintiffs filed a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court, which pointed out that what must be assessed is the possibility to apply the jurisdictional rules provided by the Montreal Convention to the claims for compensation filled under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The Supreme Court cited Case C-204/08 (3) of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which already dealt with the same matter and according to which ‘the right … based on … Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 … is a passenger’s right … which is independent of compensation for damage in the context ... of the Montreal Convention… The rights based respectively on ... provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and of the Montreal Convention accordingly fall within different regulatory frameworks’. If the claim was introduced on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 alone, the claim must be examined in the light of that Regulation.
The Supreme Court held that application of the Montreal Convention to the present case is not possible, therefore, the cassation appeal was dismissed, and the first instance conclusion was upheld.