# C_2022191EN.01001101.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 24 January 2022 — Austrian Airlines AG v TW

(Case C-49/22)

(2022/C 191/15)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Austrian Airlines AG

Respondent: TW

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) 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) (Air Passenger Rights Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that a repatriation flight operated in the exercise of the State’s sovereign activity is also to be regarded as re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to the final destination — as must be offered by the operating air carrier in the event of cancellation — where the operating air carrier cannot establish legal entitlement to transport the passenger but could register the passenger for that purpose and bear the costs and, by virtue of a contractual agreement with the State, ultimately operates the flight with the same aircraft and at the same flight times as scheduled for the flight originally cancelled? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) 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) (Air Passenger Rights Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that a repatriation flight operated in the exercise of the State’s sovereign activity is also to be regarded as re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to the final destination — as must be offered by the operating air carrier in the event of cancellation — where the operating air carrier cannot establish legal entitlement to transport the passenger but could register the passenger for that purpose and bear the costs and, by virtue of a contractual agreement with the State, ultimately operates the flight with the same aircraft and at the same flight times as scheduled for the flight originally cancelled?

| 2. | Must Article 8(1) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who registers himself or herself for a repatriation flight as described in Question 1 and who makes an obligatory contribution to costs to the State for that flight has a claim for reimbursement of those expenses against the air carrier, arising directly from the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, even if the costs do not consist exclusively of purely flight-related costs? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 8(1) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who registers himself or herself for a repatriation flight as described in Question 1 and who makes an obligatory contribution to costs to the State for that flight has a claim for reimbursement of those expenses against the air carrier, arising directly from the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, even if the costs do not consist exclusively of purely flight-related costs?

---

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

---