CJEU rules on jurisdiction in assigned Lufthansa flight delay compensation claims

In Deutsche Lufthansa AG v AirHelp Germany GmbH (Case C-551/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters. The case arose from a dispute before the Regional Court in Kraków, Poland, concerning a compensation claim for a delayed flight that had been assigned by a passenger to the company AirHelp.

AirHelp, a German-based company specialising in recovering air passenger compensation, brought proceedings against Lufthansa before a Polish court, seeking payment of €250 for a delayed flight departing from Kraków. Lufthansa challenged the court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute should fall under German jurisdiction, as both parties were domiciled in Germany and no contractual relationship existed between them.

The referring Polish court sought clarification from the CJEU on whether Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 permit jurisdiction in Poland for claims assigned to a collection agency when the air carrier and the assignee are based in other Member States.

The Court first noted that Article 7(5) of the Regulation, which concerns disputes arising from the operations of a branch or agency, was not relevant in this case, as no evidence was provided of Lufthansa’s Polish establishment being involved in the underlying transaction. Accordingly, that aspect of the referral was deemed inadmissible.

Turning to Article 7(1)(b), the Court reaffirmed that the provision aims to establish a close connection between the dispute and the court with jurisdiction, based on the place where the contractual obligation was performed or should have been performed. In the context of air transport, this place corresponds to either the point of departure or the point of arrival of the flight, as previously established in Rehder (C-204/08).

The Court emphasised that the special jurisdiction under Article 7(1)(b) is not contingent on the contractual relationship between the specific parties to the proceedings, but rather on the subject matter of the claim and the location of the contractual performance. Therefore, the fact that the passenger had assigned the claim to AirHelp, a commercial entity, did not alter the relevant connection between the contract of carriage and the place of performance.

The Court further observed that the transfer of claims does not affect the determination of jurisdiction under EU law. Once a claim has arisen under a contract, the place of performance remains the decisive factor, even if the claim is subsequently assigned to another party. This ensures predictability and legal certainty for both claimants and defendants, in line with the objectives of Regulation No 1215/2012.

Applying this reasoning, the Court found that a Polish court has jurisdiction to hear AirHelp’s claim against Lufthansa, since the delayed flight originated in Kraków. The place of departure represents one of the key locations of performance under the contract of carriage, maintaining the necessary link between the dispute and the Polish court.

The Court also clarified that the lack of a direct contractual link between Lufthansa and AirHelp, and the limited scope of rights transferred under the assignment, do not undermine the jurisdiction conferred by Article 7(1)(b). The assignee effectively steps into the position of the original creditor with respect to the contractual claim.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as allowing a court of one Member State to hear a compensation claim brought by an assignee against an air carrier established in another Member State, provided that the court corresponds to the place where the services were provided or should have been provided under the original contract of carriage.

The decision confirms that, in cases involving assigned passenger compensation claims, jurisdiction remains tied to the place of flight departure or arrival, preserving procedural consistency across the European Union.