Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS and Air Baltic Corporation AS (C-302/13)
Judgment
The questions referred for a prelimina…
The first question
28

flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS and Air Baltic Corporation AS (C-302/13)

Judgment of 23 Oct 2014law://eu/cjeu/2013/c-302-13/para_28@2026-11-10

28The action brought by flyLAL seeks legal redress for damage relating to an alleged infringement of competition law. Thus, it comes within the law relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict (see, by analogy, judgment in Sunico and Others, EU:C:2013:545, paragraph 37).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-302/13 · ECLI:EU:C:2014:2319
Decided: 23 Oct 2014
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts (Latvia)
Applicant: flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS, in liquidation
Defendants: Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS; Air Baltic Corporation AS
Rapporteur: C. Toader
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
M. Ilešič, A. Ó Caoimh, C. Toader, E. Jarašiūnas, C.G. Fernlund
Language: Latvian
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62013CJ0302

Topics

Judicial cooperation in civil matters

History · 1 version

23 Oct 2014Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
Cited by 15: Tibor-Trans Fuvarozó és Kereskedelmi Kft. v DAF TRUCKS N.V (C-451/18); AB ‘flyLAL-Lithunian Airlines’ v Starptautiskā lidosta ‘Rīga’ VAS and ‘Air Baltic Corporation’ AS (C-27/17)3 provisions; BUAK Bauarbeiter-Urlaubs- u. Abfertigungskasse v Gradbeništvo Korana d.o.o (C-579/17); LG v Rina SpA and Ente Registro Italiano Navale (C-641/18); Hőszig Kft. v Alstom Power Thermal Services (C-222/15); E.ON Czech Holding AG v Michael Dĕdouch and Others (C-560/16); Stefan Fahnenbrock and Others v Hellenische Republik (C-226/13, C-245/13, C-247/13, C-578/13); Aannemingsbedrijf Aertssen NV and Aertssen Terrassements SA v VSB Machineverhuur BV and Others (C-523/14); Diageo Brands BV v Simiramida-04 EOOD (C-681/13); Ágnes Weil v Géza Gulácsi (C-361/18); Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders v David Verhaegen and Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-400/13, C-408/13); TERVE Production, spol. s r.o. v Intesa Sanpaolo Holding International S.A (C-791/24); Marine Harvest ASA v European Commission (T-704/14); Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Österreich (C-102/15)2 provisions; European Commission v Republic of Slovenia (C-140/14)
Cites 16: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Sunico ApS and Others (C-49/12); Land Berlin v Ellen Mirjam Sapir and Others (C-645/11); Meletis Apostolides v David Charles Orams and Linda Elizabeth Orams (C-420/07); Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL and Karsten Fräßdorf (C-548/12); Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd (C-619/10); Dieter Krombach v André Bamberski (C-7/98); Cartier parfums — lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions assurances SA v Ziegler France SA and Others (C-1/13); Nicole Hassett v South Eastern Health Board and Cheryl Doherty v North Western Health Board (C-372/07); Aéroports de Paris v Commission of the European Communities (C-82/01 P); SAT Fluggesellschaft mbH v Eurocontrol (C-364/92); Régie nationale des usines Renault SA v Maxicar SpA and Orazio Formento (C-38/98); Prism Investments BV v Jaap Anne van der Meer (C-139/10); Hi Hotel HCF SARL v Uwe Spoering (C-387/12); flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS and Air Baltic Corporation AS (C-302/13); Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH v European Commission (C-288/11 P)