# C_2018352EN.01002201.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 July 2018 — PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt. v WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft.

(Case C-476/18)

(2018/C 352/27)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PannonHitel Pénzügyi Zrt.

Defendant: WizzAir Hungary Légiközlekedési Kft.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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 (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are rescheduled may be treated in the same way as passengers whose flights are cancelled, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, and that they may therefore rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation where the air carrier informs passengers of the rescheduling the day before the originally scheduled departure date and, as a consequence of the change, passengers suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours compared with the originally scheduled arrival time, that is, they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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 (‘the Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are rescheduled may be treated in the same way as passengers whose flights are cancelled, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, and that they may therefore rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation where the air carrier informs passengers of the rescheduling the day before the originally scheduled departure date and, as a consequence of the change, passengers suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours compared with the originally scheduled arrival time, that is, they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier?

| 2. | Must Articles 5 to 7 of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are rescheduled may be treated in the same way as passengers affected by a delay for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation and that they may therefore rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation where, as a consequence of the rescheduling, they suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Articles 5 to 7 of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are rescheduled may be treated in the same way as passengers affected by a delay for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation and that they may therefore rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation where, as a consequence of the rescheduling, they suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier?

---

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

---