# C_2019148EN.01001801.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Juiz 18 (Portugal) lodged on 31 January 2019 — LE v Transport Aéreos Portugueses S.A.

(Case C-74/19)

(2019/C 148/17)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Juiz 18

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LE

Defendant: Transport Aéreos Portugueses S.A.

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the fact that a passenger, in the course of a flight, bites other passengers and assaults crew members who attempt to calm him to such an extent as to justify, according to the flight commander, a diversion to the nearest airport to disembark that passenger and unload his luggage, which results in the delayed arrival of the flight at its destination, fall within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, referred to in recital 14 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the fact that a passenger, in the course of a flight, bites other passengers and assaults crew members who attempt to calm him to such an extent as to justify, according to the flight commander, a diversion to the nearest airport to disembark that passenger and unload his luggage, which results in the delayed arrival of the flight at its destination, fall within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, referred to in recital 14 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

| 2. | Is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which occurs on an outward flight immediately preceding the return flight made by the same aircraft, relevant to exempt the air carrier from liability for the delay in the take-off of that latter flight onto which the complainant passenger (the applicant in this case) has boarded? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which occurs on an outward flight immediately preceding the return flight made by the same aircraft, relevant to exempt the air carrier from liability for the delay in the take-off of that latter flight onto which the complainant passenger (the applicant in this case) has boarded?

| 3. | For the purposes of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, does the analysis carried out by the airline (the defendant in this case), which concluded that sending another aircraft would not avoid the situation of delay and therefore the transfer of the transit passenger (the applicant in this case) to a flight scheduled for the following day, since the airline operates only one daily flight to the passenger’s final destination, correspond to conduct by the airline in which it took all reasonable measures, even if it was not possible to remedy the delay? |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the purposes of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, does the analysis carried out by the airline (the defendant in this case), which concluded that sending another aircraft would not avoid the situation of delay and therefore the transfer of the transit passenger (the applicant in this case) to a flight scheduled for the following day, since the airline operates only one daily flight to the passenger’s final destination, correspond to conduct by the airline in which it took all reasonable measures, even if it was not possible to remedy the delay?

---

(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).

---