# C_2021349EN.01001801.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 27 May 2021 — L GmbH v F GmbH, BW, SW

(Case C-336/21)

(2021/C 349/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: L GmbH

Respondents: F GmbH, BW, SW

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of the regulation, if it arrives at the passenger’s final destination with a delay of 7 hours and 41 minutes, because the aircraft was damaged by a lightning strike during the first of two preceding flights; the technician from the air carrier’s contracted maintenance company who was called in after landing found only minor damage that did not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft (‘some minor findings’); the second preceding flight went ahead; however, during the course of a pre-flight check before the preceding flight, it emerged that the aircraft was not fit for further use for the time being; and the air carrier therefore used a replacement aircraft in place of the originally intended, damaged aircraft, which completed the flight with a departure delay of 7 hours and 40 minutes? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of the regulation, if it arrives at the passenger’s final destination with a delay of 7 hours and 41 minutes, because the aircraft was damaged by a lightning strike during the first of two preceding flights; the technician from the air carrier’s contracted maintenance company who was called in after landing found only minor damage that did not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft (‘some minor findings’); the second preceding flight went ahead; however, during the course of a pre-flight check before the preceding flight, it emerged that the aircraft was not fit for further use for the time being; and the air carrier therefore used a replacement aircraft in place of the originally intended, damaged aircraft, which completed the flight with a departure delay of 7 hours and 40 minutes?

| 2. | Is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that the reasonable measures to be taken by the air carrier include offering to rebook the passengers on a different flight, which would have enabled them to reach their final destination with less of a delay, even though the air carrier operated the flight with a replacement aircraft in place of the now unfit aircraft, with which the passengers reached their final destination with a longer delay? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that the reasonable measures to be taken by the air carrier include offering to rebook the passengers on a different flight, which would have enabled them to reach their final destination with less of a delay, even though the air carrier operated the flight with a replacement aircraft in place of the now unfit aircraft, with which the passengers reached their final destination with a longer delay?

---

(1)  Regulation 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).

---