Supreme Court Reaffirms Federal Jurisdiction for Air Passengers Claims

A years’ long debate –intensified in recent years– has reached the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice regarding jurisdictional conflicts between federal and local (known as “ordinary”) courts as to which court is competent to preside over air passenger disputes. In this scenario, some local courts have claimed jurisdiction over these cases while other federal courts have declined their own jurisdiction.

In either case, the conflict arises from the interpretation that local jurisdiction should prevail in consumer relationships and the contractual aspects of a commercial nature not dealing specifically with the air transport contract itself. Although many of these conflicts have arisen between the national commercial courts (i.e., the courts with local jurisdiction sitting in the City of Buenos Aires) and the federal civil and commercial court (also sitting in the City of Buenos Aires), the controversy also extends to the jurisdictions of Cordoba, Mendoza, Tucuman, Salta, among others.

The Supreme Court, however, has decidedly ruled in favor of the federal jurisdiction to hear these cases. Below, we review the main rulings issued recently.

In Fallos: 346:75, in a lawsuit initiated for breach of air transport contracts due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court confirmed that the federal courts are competent to hear claims for damages arising from commercial air transport services, understood as "the series of acts aimed at transporting people or goods by aircraft from one aerodrome to another, and subject to the provisions of the Aeronautical Code, its regulations, and the operational provisions of the aeronautical authority." This standard was also replicated in other lawsuits related to the pandemic, such as in the cases “Sandoval, Liliana Lorena y otros c/ Aerovías del Continente Americano S.A. s/ amparo,” “Zadel, Adriana Gabriela y otro c/ Almundo.com SRL y otro s/ daños y perjuicios,” “Domínguez, Alberto Martín y otro c/Turkish Airlines Inc. s/sumarísimo,” among others.

In Fallos: 345:1289, based on similar grounds, the Court ruled for the jurisdiction of the federal courts in a lawsuit initiated for breach of an air transport contract due to an alleged delay in processing the payment of the airline ticket.

In "Zizzias, María Alejandra y otro c/ Lan Argentina SA s/ incumplimiento de contrato," the Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a denied-boarding case.

More recently, in "Colina Oses, Carmen Frangelis c/ Despegar.com.ar S.A. y otro s/ ordinario," "Pentreath, Matías c/ Latam Airlines Group s/ ordinario," and "De Urquiza, Juan Ignacio c/ Despegar.com.ar SA y otro s/ sumarísimo," all issued on May 16, 2024, the Court held that, when questioning the regularity of the airline's actions concerning the refund of purchased tickets, the central issue at stake relates to air transport and, therefore, it’s the federal courts that have jurisdiction to preside. In this way, the Court overturned three rulings issued by the Court of Appeals in Commercial Matters of the City of Buenos Aires that had confirmed the jurisdiction of the commercial court in the respective cases.

The Supreme Court therefore reaffirms the jurisdiction of federal courts to solve  disputes dealing with commercial air transport services; a criteria that, although repeated in recent years, has been upheld by the Supreme Court in precedents such as Fallos: 329:2819, “Zulaica, Alberto Oscar c/ Air Europa Lineas Aéreas S.A. y otros s/ cumplimiento de contrato” or “Mac Gaul, Marcia Ivonne c/ Lan Airlines S.A. s/ acciones Ley de Defensa del Consumidor” (issued, respectively, in 2006, 2015, and 2019).