# C_2023286EN.01001601.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Amiens (France) lodged on 27 March 2023 — Air France SA v M. L., the spouse of G, X. G., C. G., R. G, L. G.

(Case C-194/23, Air France)

(2023/C 286/19)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel d’Amiens

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Air France SA

Respondents: M. L., the spouse of G, X. G, C. G., R. G, L. G.

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the concept of ‘directly connecting flight’ referred to in Article 2(h) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the flights having been the subject of a single booking is a necessary condition of its existence or merely one indication among others, so that, where separate bookings were made, the national courts can examine other factors capable of characterising a set of flights? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the concept of ‘directly connecting flight’ referred to in Article 2(h) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the flights having been the subject of a single booking is a necessary condition of its existence or merely one indication among others, so that, where separate bookings were made, the national courts can examine other factors capable of characterising a set of flights?

| 2. | If the concept of ‘directly connecting flight’ may be applied where separate bookings were made, must that concept be interpreted as meaning that the conditions of the stopover as in the present case, lasting 19 hours with one night booked in a hotel outside the airport, are of such a kind as to preclude a set of flights? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the concept of ‘directly connecting flight’ may be applied where separate bookings were made, must that concept be interpreted as meaning that the conditions of the stopover as in the present case, lasting 19 hours with one night booked in a hotel outside the airport, are of such a kind as to preclude a set of flights?

| 3. | If the concept of ‘directly connecting flight’ must be precluded, must the concept of ‘further compensation’ referred to in Article 12(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that it includes compensation for transport costs which no longer serve any purpose, which cannot be reimbursed on the basis of Article 8 of that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the concept of ‘directly connecting flight’ must be precluded, must the concept of ‘further compensation’ referred to in Article 12(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that it includes compensation for transport costs which no longer serve any purpose, which cannot be reimbursed on the basis of Article 8 of that regulation?

| 4. | Must the concept of ‘further compensation’ referred to in Article 12(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that it covers all the damage resulting from the breach of contract, without being constrained by the limitations laid down in national law, like foreseeability of the damage in French law? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Must the concept of ‘further compensation’ referred to in Article 12(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that it covers all the damage resulting from the breach of contract, without being constrained by the limitations laid down in national law, like foreseeability of the damage in French law?

---

(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).

---