Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 December 2023 –
[Avdzhilov] ( i )

(Case C‑319/23)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Second indent of Article 7(1)(b) – International and territorial jurisdiction in contractual matters – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Claim for compensation by air passengers for the cancellation of a flight – Article 5(1)(c) – Article 7(1)(a) – National legislation providing for other grounds of jurisdiction in favour of consumers)

Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters – Regulation No 1215/2012 – Special jurisdiction – Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract – Court or tribunal seised of an action under Regulation No 261/2004 – Scope – Conferral of both international and territorial jurisdiction – National legislation providing for other grounds of jurisdiction in favour of consumers – Inapplicability

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 261/2004 and No 1215/2012, recital 16 and Art. 7(1)(b), second indent)

(see paragraphs 25-30, operative part)

Operative part

The second indent of Article 7(1)(b) 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 where that provision applies, a court or tribunal of a Member State seised of an action 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 must assess both its international and territorial jurisdiction in the light of that provision, notwithstanding the possible existence, under national legislation, of other grounds of jurisdiction in favour of consumers.

( i ) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.