# C_2018455EN.01001901.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 7 September 2018 — Austrian Airlines AG v MG, NF

(Case C-566/18)

(2018/C 455/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Austrian Airlines AG

Applicants and respondents: MG, NF

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that airline passengers may be entitled to compensation under the regulation more than once on the basis of the same reservation if the flight on which the operating air carrier has rebooked the passengers is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours, with the result that the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation is not fixed but rather is contingent on the number of cancellations or on the scope of the cancellations and the associated delay? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that airline passengers may be entitled to compensation under the regulation more than once on the basis of the same reservation if the flight on which the operating air carrier has rebooked the passengers is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours, with the result that the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation is not fixed but rather is contingent on the number of cancellations or on the scope of the cancellations and the associated delay?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: how is this to be reconciled with the principle laid down in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 November 2009, Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, (2) according to which Article 5 of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are to be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled under the rules on compensation, when the Court of Justice held in its judgment of 23 October 2012, Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10, (3) that a delay in excess of three hours is not taken into account in the calculation of the fixed compensation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative: how is this to be reconciled with the principle laid down in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 November 2009, Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, (2) according to which Article 5 of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are to be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled under the rules on compensation, when the Court of Justice held in its judgment of 23 October 2012, Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10, (3) that a delay in excess of three hours is not taken into account in the calculation of the fixed compensation?

---

(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).

(2)  EU:C:2009:716.

(3)  EU:C:2012:657.

---