1.

Does the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) require, in all respects, an autonomous interpretation common to all the Member States, which cannot, therefore, be made subject to limitations laid down in Member States’ rules on domestic jurisdiction?

2.

Is the concept of implied prorogation of jurisdiction laid down in and governed by Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 a ‘pure’ rule of international jurisdiction, which determines exclusively the courts of a particular Member State but leaves it to the procedural law of that Member State to specify the court with territorial jurisdiction or, on the other hand, is it a rule of both international and territorial jurisdiction?

3.

In the light of the facts of the case, can a situation involving a flight which is operated by an airline domiciled in another Member State, but which departs from or arrives in a Member State where that airline has a branch providing ancillary services to the airline but through which the tickets were not purchased, be deemed to constitute a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, which is the basis for the connecting factor for the ground of jurisdiction laid down in Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012?