Flight delays, Ryanair's clause assigning cases to the Irish judge applies

In the case of a request for refund for delayed flights, Ryanair's clause assigning cases to the Irish courts applies. A derogation from the rules on jurisdiction that is possible if the passenger, when purchasing the ticket online, ticks the box with the point and click system. The Unified Sections, in their judgment 8802/2025, rejected the appeal of a couple requesting 517 euros from Ryanair as lump sum compensation and transfer fees. The basis of the request was the prolonged delay of an Alghero/Treviso flight, which was diverted to Venice. A request accepted by the Justice of the Peace and rejected by the Court, which then ended up before the United Sections.

The Court, while bringing the case within the scope of the EU regulations (Regulation 261/04), valued the conduct that had allowed the derogation, i.e. the purchase of the online ticket, which was equivalent to the written form, with the acceptance of the clause, according to which disputes relating to the signed contract were to be settled exclusively before the Irish courts. A valid 'covenant' for the bond resulting from the signed contract, which could be downloaded by opening a link. Neither, for two reasons, does the travellers' request to apply the Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999, ratified in Italy in 2004, which does not allow exceptions to the criteria of jurisdiction, which, in the case examined, would have been national, pass. However, the Convention only concerns international transport and not domestic flights, which do not involve stopovers in other Member States.

Second reason is that the Convention only applies to claims for additional damages and not to claims for compensation. Also excluded is the possibility of appealing Regulation 1215/2012, which introduces a special rule in the case of consumer contracts, in favour of consumers as regards jurisdiction. The rule, however, applies - the United Sections recall - only to contracts of carriage that provide for combined services with accommodation for an overall price.

For the Supreme Court, therefore, excluding 'favourable' consumer protection treatment, a clause derogating from the ordinary criteria for the allocation of disputes must be considered 'validly agreed'. Specifically, the requirement of written form was respected, since the derogation was contained in the general terms of the contract available on the web.