# C_2018063EN.01000601.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 14 November 2017 — Germanwings GmbH v Emina Pedić

(Case C-636/17)

(2018/C 063/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Germanwings GmbH

Appellant:

Respondent: Emina Pedić

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 5(3) 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), to be interpreted as meaning that ‘all reasonable measures’ which the operating air carrier must have taken in order, in the event of extraordinary circumstances, to avoid an obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation must be aimed merely at avoiding the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ (in this particular case, the allocation of a new (later) air traffic control slot by the European air surveillance organisation EUROCONTROL), or is the operating air carrier also required to take reasonable measures to avoid cancellations or long delays themselves? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 5(3) 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), to be interpreted as meaning that ‘all reasonable measures’ which the operating air carrier must have taken in order, in the event of extraordinary circumstances, to avoid an obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation must be aimed merely at avoiding the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ (in this particular case, the allocation of a new (later) air traffic control slot by the European air surveillance organisation EUROCONTROL), or is the operating air carrier also required to take reasonable measures to avoid cancellations or long delays themselves?

1

| 2. | If the operating air carrier is required to take reasonable measures to avoid long delays themselves, is Article 5(3) 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, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the carriage of passengers on a route consisting of two (or more) flights, the air carrier must, in order to avoid an obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation, merely take reasonable measures aimed at avoiding a delay to the flight which it is due to operate and which is subject to possible delay, or that it must also take reasonable measures to avoid a long delay for the individual passenger at the final destination (for example, by examining the possibility of rebooking the passenger onto another flight)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the operating air carrier is required to take reasonable measures to avoid long delays themselves, is Article 5(3) 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, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of the carriage of passengers on a route consisting of two (or more) flights, the air carrier must, in order to avoid an obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation, merely take reasonable measures aimed at avoiding a delay to the flight which it is due to operate and which is subject to possible delay, or that it must also take reasonable measures to avoid a long delay for the individual passenger at the final destination (for example, by examining the possibility of rebooking the passenger onto another flight)?

| 3. | Are Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 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, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a long delay at the final destination, the operating air carrier — if it wishes to avoid an obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation — must state and prove that it has taken reasonable measures to rebook the passenger onto a flight expected to enable him to reach his final destination without a long delay? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 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, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a long delay at the final destination, the operating air carrier — if it wishes to avoid an obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of that regulation — must state and prove that it has taken reasonable measures to rebook the passenger onto a flight expected to enable him to reach his final destination without a long delay?

---

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

1

---