# C_2010113EN.01002401.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 11 February 2010 — Aurora Sousa Rodriguez y otros v Air France S.A.

(Case C-83/10)

2010/C 113/37

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Aurora Sousa Rodríguez, Yago López Sousa, Rodrigo Puga Lueiro, Luis Rodríguez González, María del Mar Pato Barreiro, Manuel López Alonso, Yaiza Pato Rodríguez

Applicants:

Defendant: Air France S.A.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the term ‘cancellation’, defined in Article 2(l) of [Regulation EC No 261/2004], (1) to be interpreted as meaning only the failure of the flight to depart as planned or is it also to be interpreted as meaning any circumstance as a result of which the flight on which places are reserved takes off but fails to reach its destination, including the case in which the flight is forced to return to the airport of departure for technical reasons? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the term ‘cancellation’, defined in Article 2(l) of [Regulation EC No 261/2004], (1) to be interpreted as meaning only the failure of the flight to depart as planned or is it also to be interpreted as meaning any circumstance as a result of which the flight on which places are reserved takes off but fails to reach its destination, including the case in which the flight is forced to return to the airport of departure for technical reasons?

1

| 2. | Is the term ‘further compensation’ used in Article 12 of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a cancellation, the national court may award compensation for damage, including non-material damage, for breach of a contract of carriage by air in accordance with rules established in national legislation and case-law on breach of contact or, on the contrary, must such compensation relate solely to appropriately substantiated expenses incurred by passengers and not adequately indemnified by the carrier in accordance with the requirements of Articles 8 and 9 of Regulation 261/2004/EC, even if such provisions have not been expressly relied upon or, lastly, are the two aforementioned definitions of the term further compensation compatible one with another? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the term ‘further compensation’ used in Article 12 of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a cancellation, the national court may award compensation for damage, including non-material damage, for breach of a contract of carriage by air in accordance with rules established in national legislation and case-law on breach of contact or, on the contrary, must such compensation relate solely to appropriately substantiated expenses incurred by passengers and not adequately indemnified by the carrier in accordance with the requirements of Articles 8 and 9 of Regulation 261/2004/EC, even if such provisions have not been expressly relied upon or, lastly, are the two aforementioned definitions of the term further compensation compatible one with another?

---

(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 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---