In a decision that sets a significant precedent in European law, and which in the case of the 2025 Easter general strike called in the Canary Islands, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled, in Case C-774/22 (FTI Touristik), that Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012, known as the "Brussels I bis" Regulation, is applicable even when both contracting parties are domiciled in the same Member State, provided that the destination of the trip is located abroad. This foreign element is sufficient to establish the applicability of the Regulation, according to the ruling.
This interpretation strengthens the protection of consumer rights, establishing that they can bring legal action against professionals domiciled in the same Member State if the contract has an international component, such as a destination abroad. The ruling sets a key precedent for future litigation in the field of travel contracts and strengthens the coherence of Community law in consumer protection.
The case at hand involves an individual domiciled in Nuremberg, Germany, who booked a package tour with a Munich-based travel agency. The plaintiff filed a complaint with the Nuremberg Court, arguing that he was not adequately informed about the entry and visa requirements for his travel destination, which was located in a third country. The complaint was based on Articles 17 and 18 of Regulation 1215/2012, which the plaintiff considers applicable to determining the court's territorial jurisdiction.
The travel agency rejected the application of the Regulation, arguing that the situation was internal in nature, as both parties were domiciled in Germany. In response to this disagreement, the Nuremberg Court referred a preliminary question to the CJEU to clarify whether Article 18 of the Regulation establishes both international and territorial jurisdiction in similar cases.
The CJEU has clarified that, although the Regulation requires an element of foreign nationality, this may arise not only from the residence of the parties but also from the subject matter of the dispute. In this case, the travel destination, located outside the Member State of origin, meets this requirement. Furthermore, the Court confirmed that Article 18 of the Regulation grants specific territorial jurisdiction to the court of the place where the consumer resides, thus ensuring that the weaker party to the contract has easy access to justice.
