The High Court has refused Ryanair Limited’s application to dismiss or stay a claim by Sweden’s Transport Agency for airport security charges relating to passengers who booked flights before the charges were introduced.
In a judgment delivered on 4 May 2012, Mr Justice Hedigan ruled that the claim was not for a foreign revenue or public law debt. He also found that Ryanair had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Irish courts through its conduct in the proceedings. The court rejected Ryanair’s alternative request to have the case stayed in favour of Sweden. The judgment determined those preliminary issues; it did not decide whether Ryanair owed the claimed sum.
The agency’s claim is for SEK 10,193,883.50, stated in the judgment as approximately €1,150,476.05. The charges were introduced under Swedish legislation following additional airport security measures. Airlines were to collect them from passengers and pass them to the agency, with the proceeds used to compensate airports for the cost of required security controls. Ryanair had been notified of the charges in December 2004, after many passengers had booked flights for travel from 1 January 2005. The claim concerns those passengers. Ryanair had charged passengers who booked after that date.
Ryanair argued that the charges were taxes or public law sums which Irish courts could not enforce. The agency disputed that description, submitting that the charges funded airport security costs rather than raising revenue for the Swedish state. The judge accepted the agency’s account of how the funds were used: they were disbursed to airports, and any loss from non-payment would fall on airport operators. He concluded that the claim was not one to recover a foreign revenue or public law debt.
On jurisdiction, the judge noted that Ryanair had entered an unconditional appearance, responded to a summary judgment motion, agreed to a plenary hearing, sought further particulars and filed a counterclaim. He held that those steps showed Ryanair had engaged with and accepted the jurisdiction of the Irish courts, and that it could not object to jurisdiction at that stage.
Ryanair also argued that Sweden was the more appropriate forum because the claim arose there and involved Swedish law, witnesses and proposed defences. The judge found that an Irish trial would not present an insurmountable difficulty, including because the court could hear expert evidence on foreign law. Given the advanced stage of the proceedings and that the case was ready for a trial date, he concluded that justice did not require a stay. The application was refused, and the underlying claim remained for trial.