# C_2012157EN.01000402.xml

| 2.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 March 2012 — Eva-Marie Brännström and Rune Brännström v Ryanair Holdings plc

(Case C-150/12)

2012/C 157/06

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Eva-Marie Brännström and Rune Brännström

Applicants:

Defendant: Ryanair Holdings plc

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the carrier’s liability for damage caused by delay under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention also include cases where the passengers’ arrival at the destination is delayed as a result of non-operation of a flight? Does any importance attach to the stage at which the flight was cancelled, for example, after check-in? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the carrier’s liability for damage caused by delay under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention also include cases where the passengers’ arrival at the destination is delayed as a result of non-operation of a flight? Does any importance attach to the stage at which the flight was cancelled, for example, after check-in?

| 2. | Can a technical problem with the airport, which alone or together with weather conditions makes landing impossible, constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) Can the assessment of what constitutes such a circumstance be affected by the fact that the airline was already aware of the technical problem? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can a technical problem with the airport, which alone or together with weather conditions makes landing impossible, constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) Can the assessment of what constitutes such a circumstance be affected by the fact that the airline was already aware of the technical problem?

1

| 3. | If the answer to the first question in point 2 is in the affirmative, what measures must the airline take in order to avoid the obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(3) of the regulation?






  — | Can the airline be required, and if so on what conditions and to what extent, to have extra resources in the form of, for example, aircraft or crew available to operate a flight which would otherwise have had to be cancelled, or in order to be able to operate a flight in the place of a flight which has been cancelled? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first question in point 2 is in the affirmative, what measures must the airline take in order to avoid the obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(3) of the regulation?

—

Can the airline be required, and if so on what conditions and to what extent, to have extra resources in the form of, for example, aircraft or crew available to operate a flight which would otherwise have had to be cancelled, or in order to be able to operate a flight in the place of a flight which has been cancelled?

| — | Can an airline be required to offer passengers re-routing under Article 8(1)(b) [of the regulation]? In that case what is the obligation as regards carriage, for example, in respect of time of departure and the use of other carriers? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can an airline be required to offer passengers re-routing under Article 8(1)(b) [of the regulation]? In that case what is the obligation as regards carriage, for example, in respect of time of departure and the use of other carriers?

| 4. | If the answer to the question in point 1 is in the affirmative, is there any difference between the measures which an airline must take to avoid the obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(3) of the regulation and the measures which it must take to avoid liability for damage under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the question in point 1 is in the affirmative, is there any difference between the measures which an airline must take to avoid the obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(3) of the regulation and the measures which it must take to avoid liability for damage under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention?

---

(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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---