More references for CJEU prelimiary ruling on Air Passenger Rights Regulation lodged by German courts

Michael Wukoschitz's picture

With regard to Reg. EC No 261/2004 (" Air Passenger Rights Regulation") the follwowing issues have recently been referred to the CJEU by German courts:

1. Reference of Feb. 4, 2014 by Landgericht Hannover  (C-79/14 - TUIfly):

  • Is Article 7 of Regulation EC No 261/2004  of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that a non-notified ‘early’ flight, with the result that the passengers cannot take the flight, is also covered by the regulation?
  • Is the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, with the exception of Article 5, the cause of the delay is not decisive?
  • Is the aim of the regulation, namely to compensate for the damage arising from a loss of time, also affected if the passenger would arrive earlier and therefore time arrangements before the flight are concerned?
  • Does the lack of notification of the bringing forward of the flight, the consequence of which was that the holiday resort was reached later than planned, result in the regulation being applied?
  • Is the aim of the regulation to provide a high level of protection, with the result that the restriction of the passenger’s time arrangements is protected? Also in respect of an early arrival?

2. Reference of Feb.25, 2014  by Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (C-118/14 - Kieck):

  • Is there also a right under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/20004  to compensation where the departure of the booked flight is delayed by more than three hours, the passenger rebooks on another airline and the delay on arrival compared with the original flight is thereby appreciably reduced, whilst both the original flight and the replacement flight arrive at the original destination far more than three hours late?
  • If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it decisive in this regard that the period of five hours, specified in Article 6(1)(iii), for application of Article 8(1) of the regulation has or has not expired?
  • Is it material whether the rebooking was made independently by the passenger or with the defendant’s help?

3. Reference of Feb. 28, 2014 by Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (C-119/14 - Niessen ea):

  • Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004? 
  • If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

 

X