# C_2011089EN.01001001.xml

| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 24 December 2010 — TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association, The Queen v Civil Aviation Authority

(Case C-629/10)

2011/C 89/18

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association

Applicants:

Defendant: Civil Aviation Authority

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as requiring the compensation provided for in Article 7 to be paid to passengers whose flights are subject to delay within the meaning of Article 6, and if so in what circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as requiring the compensation provided for in Article 7 to be paid to passengers whose flights are subject to delay within the meaning of Article 6, and if so in what circumstances?

1

| 2. | If question 1 is answered in the negative, are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 invalid, in whole or in part, for breach of the principle of equal treatment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question 1 is answered in the negative, are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 invalid, in whole or in part, for breach of the principle of equal treatment?

| 3. | If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 invalid, in whole or in part, for (a) inconsistency with the Montreal Convention; (b) breach of the principle of proportionality; and/or (c) breach of the principle of legal certainty? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 invalid, in whole or in part, for (a) inconsistency with the Montreal Convention; (b) breach of the principle of proportionality; and/or (c) breach of the principle of legal certainty?

| 4. | If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 3 in the negative, what if any limits are to be placed upon the temporal effects of the Court's ruling in this case? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 3 in the negative, what if any limits are to be placed upon the temporal effects of the Court's ruling in this case?

| 5. | If question 1 is answered in the negative, what if any effect is to be given to the decision of Sturgeon between 19 November 2009 and the date of the Court's ruling In this case? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If question 1 is answered in the negative, what if any effect is to be given to the decision of Sturgeon between 19 November 2009 and the date of the Court's ruling In this case?

---

(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

1

OJ L 46, p. 1

---