# C_2022128EN.01000701.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Járásbíróság (Hungary) lodged on 14 December 2021 — JH v Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)

(Case C-771/21)

(2022/C 128/09)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Járásbíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JH

Defendant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(3) of 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) to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is obliged to take reasonable measures to avoid the cancellation of a flight even in the event of extraordinary circumstances which confer exemption? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(3) of 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) to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is obliged to take reasonable measures to avoid the cancellation of a flight even in the event of extraordinary circumstances which confer exemption?

| 2. | If the Court of Justice replies to question 1 in the affirmative, is the air carrier obliged, as part of those reasonable measures,






  a) | to return with the aircraft assigned for operation of the flight, which was diverted to a neighbouring airport because of a storm, to collect the passengers for that flight as soon as the crew’s flying time allows, and, therefore, to operate that flight? If so, is the air carrier also obliged to do this even if, for that reason, in order for other flights which have been assigned to the aircraft to operate, it has to provide another aircraft and a replacement crew at the departure airport of those flights, which is the air carrier’s base airport? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the Court of Justice replies to question 1 in the affirmative, is the air carrier obliged, as part of those reasonable measures,

a)

to return with the aircraft assigned for operation of the flight, which was diverted to a neighbouring airport because of a storm, to collect the passengers for that flight as soon as the crew’s flying time allows, and, therefore, to operate that flight? If so, is the air carrier also obliged to do this even if, for that reason, in order for other flights which have been assigned to the aircraft to operate, it has to provide another aircraft and a replacement crew at the departure airport of those flights, which is the air carrier’s base airport?

| b) | to transfer the passengers by road to the aircraft assigned for operation of the flight, which was diverted to a neighbouring airport 140 km away because of a storm, and to operate the flight from there? |
| --- | --- |

b)

to transfer the passengers by road to the aircraft assigned for operation of the flight, which was diverted to a neighbouring airport 140 km away because of a storm, and to operate the flight from there?

| c) | to send a replacement aircraft or to transfer the passengers by road to the replacement aircraft, which was sent to a neighbouring airport, and, therefore, to operate the flight? |
| --- | --- |

c)

to send a replacement aircraft or to transfer the passengers by road to the replacement aircraft, which was sent to a neighbouring airport, and, therefore, to operate the flight?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1, Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 07 Volume 008 P. 10.

---