# C_2011072EN.01000803.xml

| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany), lodged on 13 December 2010 — Emeka Nelson, Bill Chinazo Nelson, Brian Cheimezie Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-581/10)

2011/C 72/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Emeka Nelson, Bill Chinazo Nelson, Brian Cheimezie Nelson

Applicants:

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the right to compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) constitute a claim for non-compensatory damages within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999 for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air (‘the Montreal Convention’)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the right to compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) constitute a claim for non-compensatory damages within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999 for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air (‘the Montreal Convention’)?

1

| 2. | What is the relationship between, on the one hand, the right to compensation based on Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 which a passenger has, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others [2009] ECR I-10923, if he reaches his final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time and, on the other hand, the right to compensation in respect of delay provided for in Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, regard being had to the exclusion under the second sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is the relationship between, on the one hand, the right to compensation based on Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 which a passenger has, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others [2009] ECR I-10923, if he reaches his final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time and, on the other hand, the right to compensation in respect of delay provided for in Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, regard being had to the exclusion under the second sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention?

Sturgeon and Others

| 3. | How may the interpretative criterion underlying the Court of Justice’s judgment in Sturgeon and Others, which allows the right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be extended to cover cases of delay, be reconciled with the interpretative criterion which the Court of Justice applied to that regulation in its judgment in Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How may the interpretative criterion underlying the Court of Justice’s judgment in Sturgeon and Others, which allows the right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be extended to cover cases of delay, be reconciled with the interpretative criterion which the Court of Justice applied to that regulation in its judgment in Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403?

Sturgeon and Others

IATA and ELFAA

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---