# C_2020215EN.01001601.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus — Finland) — A and Others v Finnair Oyj

(Case C-832/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 5 and 7 - Right to compensation in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight - Entitlement to compensation more than once in the event of a delay or cancellation not only of the original reservation, but also of the subsequent reservation made in the context of a re-routing - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - ‘On condition’ part - Technical shortcomings inherent in aircraft maintenance)

(2020/C 215/18)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hovioikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A and Others

Defendant: Finnair Oyj

Operative part of the judgment

| 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, and in particular Article 7(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an air passenger who has received compensation for the cancellation of a flight and has accepted the re-routing flight offered to him is entitled to compensation for the delay of the re-routing flight, where that delay is such as to give rise to entitlement to compensation and the air carrier of the re-routing flight is the same as that of the cancelled flight; |
| --- | --- |

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, and in particular Article 7(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an air passenger who has received compensation for the cancellation of a flight and has accepted the re-routing flight offered to him is entitled to compensation for the delay of the re-routing flight, where that delay is such as to give rise to entitlement to compensation and the air carrier of the re-routing flight is the same as that of the cancelled flight;

| 2. | Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier may not rely, for the purposes of being released from its obligation to pay compensation, on ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision, arising from the failure of a so-called ‘on condition’ part, that is to say, a part which is replaced only when it becomes defective, even though it permanently stocks a spare part, except where such a failure constitutes an event which, by its nature or origin, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is outside its actual control, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, it being considered, however, that, in so far as that failure is, in principle, intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft, it must not be regarded as such an event. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier may not rely, for the purposes of being released from its obligation to pay compensation, on ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision, arising from the failure of a so-called ‘on condition’ part, that is to say, a part which is replaced only when it becomes defective, even though it permanently stocks a spare part, except where such a failure constitutes an event which, by its nature or origin, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is outside its actual control, which it is for the referring court to ascertain, it being considered, however, that, in so far as that failure is, in principle, intrinsically linked to the operating system of the aircraft, it must not be regarded as such an event.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---