Jurisdiction over ‘matters relating to a contract’ under the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation: no direct contractual relationship required

Jurisdiction over ‘matters relating to a contract’ under the Brussels I (Recast) Regulation: No direct contractual relationship required: Joined Cases C-274/16, C-448/16 and C-447/16 flightright GmbH v. Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA, Roland Becker v. Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd and Mohamed Barkan and Others v. Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA, EU: C:2018:160

The Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) flightright ruling further demarcates the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ that features in Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation. In its everlasting endeavour to clarify that concept’s reach, the CJEU sheds its light on airplane passengers’ compensation actions. Particular to this case is that instead of suing the contracting airline, which received the booking, the passengers opted to sue the operating airline, that is, the airline that performed the first leg of the flight on behalf of the contracting airline. The CJEU stretches the concept of contract to the extent that such an action is contractual, despite the absence of any direct contractual relationship. Additionally, it is held that the operating airline can be sued in the courts of the final destination even though the final leg of the flight had been operated by the contracting airline. This contribution observes that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ is broadening because of the application of an ‘ancestry test’, which entails that the concept encompasses all actions that originate in a contract. Consequently, ever more actions can be brought into the contractual forum.