# C_2018112EN.01000701.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2017 — Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland v Aylin Wüst, Peter Wüst

(Case C-645/17)

(2018/C 112/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland

Applicant:

Defendants: Aylin Wüst, Peter Wüst

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that the temporary closure of an airport due to an accident involving an aircraft on landing constitutes an extraordinary circumstance? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that the temporary closure of an airport due to an accident involving an aircraft on landing constitutes an extraordinary circumstance?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
  Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that the temporary closure of an airport constitutes an extraordinary circumstance even if the aircraft involved in the accident belonged to the fleet of the air carrier which is relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in relation to a flight which was delayed due to the closure of the airport? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that the temporary closure of an airport constitutes an extraordinary circumstance even if the aircraft involved in the accident belonged to the fleet of the air carrier which is relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in relation to a flight which was delayed due to the closure of the airport?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:
  Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that even in the case that the aircraft [Or. 3] involved in the accident belonged to the fleet of an air carrier which is relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in relation to a flight which was delayed due to the closure of the airport, the delay in arrival of longer than three hours was ‘caused’ by that extraordinary circumstance? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:

Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that even in the case that the aircraft [Or. 3] involved in the accident belonged to the fleet of an air carrier which is relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in relation to a flight which was delayed due to the closure of the airport, the delay in arrival of longer than three hours was ‘caused’ by that extraordinary circumstance?

---

(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).

1

---