Jetairfly requested that the sub-district court judge to declare he has no jurisdiction to hear the claimants' request. Jetairfly considered that the provisions of Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels I Regulation) mean that the Belgian court had jurisdiction in this case because the company was established in Belgium. In view of the main rule stated in Art. 2 of the Brussels I Regulation, jurisdiction lies with the Member State of the defendant. That was the Belgian court. In the present case, the fact that the claimants were consumers did not mean that an exception had to be made to that main rule. Claimants argued that on the basis of Section 4 Brussels I Regulation that the court siesed was competent to hear the present dispute. Art. 15(3) of the Regulation states that the section does not apply to transport contracts, unless it concerns contracts where both transport and accommodation are offered for a single price. The claimants argued that the exception in Art. 15(3) of the Regulation applied, since Jetairfly did indeed offer a combination of transport and accommodation on its website. The sub-district court judge rejected the claimants’ view. Art. 15(3) of the Regulation made an exception for agreements in which both transport and accommodation are offered for a single price. A textual explanation did not change this. This meant that the main rule of Art. 2 of the Brussels I Regulation applied and that the sub-district court was not competent to rule on the claim.
The sub-district court ordered the claimants to pay the costs of the proceedings and €30 to Jetairfly as payment for the lost income of the representative’s salary.