# C_2011080EN.01001402.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Dublin Metropolitan District Court (Ireland) made on 10 January 2011 — Danise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-12/11)

2011/C 80/27

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Dublin Metropolitan District Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Denise McDonagh

Applicant:

Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do circumstances such as the closures of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland, which caused widespread and prolonged disruption to air travel, go beyond ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Regulation 261/2004 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do circumstances such as the closures of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland, which caused widespread and prolonged disruption to air travel, go beyond ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Regulation 261/2004 (1)?

1

| 2. | If the answer to question 1 is yes, is liability for the duty to provide care excluded under Articles 5 and 9 in such circumstances? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to question 1 is yes, is liability for the duty to provide care excluded under Articles 5 and 9 in such circumstances?

| 3. | If the answer to question 2 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to question 2 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

| 4. | Is the obligation in Articles 5 and 9 to be interpreted as containing an implied limitation, such as a temporal and/or a monetary limit, to provide care in cases where cancellation is caused by ‘extraordinary circumstances’? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the obligation in Articles 5 and 9 to be interpreted as containing an implied limitation, such as a temporal and/or a monetary limit, to provide care in cases where cancellation is caused by ‘extraordinary circumstances’?

| 5. | If the answer to question 4 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the answer to question 4 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

---

(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

1

OJ L 46, p. 1

---