Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:735
Date: 2022-09-29
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Translation C-597/20 – 1 
Case C-597/20 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
12 November 2020  
Referring court: 
Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
27 October 2020 
Applicant: 
Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ SA 
Defendant: 
Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala 
  
Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court) 
[…] 
   
Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT Spółka Akcyjna ([…] 
Warsaw, Poland […]) 
[…]  
Defendant: Budapest Főváros Kormányhivatala (Budapest 
Metropolitan Government Office) ([…] Budapest, 
Hungary […]) 
[…]  
Subject matter of the 
proceedings: 
Administrative-law action […] concerning 
consumer protection 
 
DECISION 
The [Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary)] submits to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union a request for a preliminary ruling 
concerning the interpretation of Article 16(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) 
No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 10. 2020 – CASE C-597/20 
 
2  
The court refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union: 
Must Article 16(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that where an 
individual complaint has been made by a passenger to the national body 
responsible for the enforcement of that regulation, that body cannot compel 
the airline in question to pay the compensation due to the passenger under 
the regulation? 
[…] [procedural matters of domestic law] 
Grounds 
1 This administrative court, which is hearing a consumer protection action, asks the 
Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court of Justice’), pursuant to 
Article 267 TFEU, to interpret the provisions of EU law required to reach a 
decision in the main proceedings. 
Subject matter of the proceedings and relevant facts 
2 Following a delay of more than three hours in the applicant airline’s flight from 
New York to Budapest on 22 September 2019, some foreign passengers […] 
applied to the defendant, as the Hungarian consumer protection authority, asking 
it to compel the applicant to pay the compensation provided for in Article 7 of 
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the 
Regulation’) for breach of Article 5(1)(c) of the Regulation. 
3 By decision […] of 20 April 2020 in the consumer protection proceedings 
commenced in respect of the above claim, the defendant ruled that the applicant 
had infringed Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(1)(c) of the Regulation. It therefore required 
the applicant to pay compensation of EUR 600 to each of the passengers 
concerned, and to pay the stipulated amount of compensation to any passengers 
who submitted a claim in future, provided that the cancellation or delay in the 
flight operated by the airline or the denial of boarding was not caused by 
extraordinary circumstances. The grounds given by the defendant for imposing 
this requirement were that it has jurisdiction to hear claims in respect of 
passengers’ rights by virtue of Article 16(1) and (2) of the Regulation. Pursuant to 
Article 43/A(2) of the a fogyasztóvédelemről szóló 1997. évi CLV. törvény (Law 
CLV of 1997 on consumer protection, ‘the Law on Consumer Protection’), the 
consumer protection authority ― following consultation, where necessary, with 
the aviation authority ― is responsible for enforcing Regulation [(EU) 2017/2394] 
as regards infringements of the provisions of [Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 
February 2004] within the European Union. Article 47(1)(c) of the Law on 
Consumer Protection authorises that authority to compel the undertaking to cease 
the identified irregularities or shortcomings within a specified period, while 
Article 47(1)(i) authorises it to impose ‘consumer protection fines’. 
LOT 
 
3 
4 In its administrative-law action, the applicant asks the court to annul the aforesaid 
decision. It argues that the reason for the delay to the flight in question can be 
considered an extraordinary circumstance, which is a ground for exemption under 
Article 5(3) of the Regulation, and therefore the passengers’ claim for 
compensation could lawfully be refused. 
5 The defendant contends that the administrative-law action should be dismissed 
because there are no grounds for an exemption from the requirement to pay 
compensation. 
Grounds for the request for a preliminary ruling and arguments of the 
parties 
6 The court has doubts as to whether the consumer protection authority has the 
power to compel payment of the compensation provided for in the Regulation. 
7 According to the applicant, the consumer protection authority cannot compel 
payment of the compensation provided for in the Regulation. In its opinion, that is 
confirmed by points 35 to 41 of the Advocate General’s Opinion in Joined cases 
C-145/15 and C-146/15, Ruijssenaars and Others (‘Ruijssenaars and Others’). 
The Advocate General notes, in those points, that the legal relationship between 
an air carrier and a passenger is governed by civil law, and therefore claims 
brought by passengers in exercise of the rights arising from that relationship are a 
matter for the civil courts, since they concern contractual obligations. The 
Hungarian practice, in which the national enforcement body compels the airline to 
pay compensation, deprives the civil courts of their jurisdiction. In several cases, 
other travellers have brought proceedings against the applicant in the civil courts 
in Hungary for payment of compensation. The passengers therefore have the 
option of enforcing their right to compensation through the courts as a civil claim. 
8 According to the defendant, the consumer protection authority has the power to 
compel payment of the compensation provided for in the Regulation. In its view, 
this is confirmed by paragraph 36 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in 
Ruijssenaars and Others and point 30 of the Advocate General’s Opinion in that 
case, and also by section 7.1 of the Commission Notice of 15 June 2016 
(Interpretative Guidelines on the Regulation). According to the foregoing, the 
national enforcement body is not required to take action in respect of 
compensation in individual complaints if it does not consider it necessary. 
However, the fact that action is not mandatory does not mean that it is prohibited, 
or that the body cannot take action and issue a decision on payment of 
compensation if the relevant requirements are satisfied and action is permitted 
under Member States’ legislation. In this regard, the defendant draws attention to 
the objective of ensuring a high level of protection for passengers cited in recital 1 
of the Regulation, and the duty, mentioned in that recital, to take account of the 
requirements of consumer protection in general. In its opinion, the rights of air 
passengers would be deprived of all consumer protection content if the consumer 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 10. 2020 – CASE C-597/20 
 
4  
protection authority could not take action and order payment of compensation in 
individual cases. It would make no sense to designate a national enforcement body 
pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Regulation if the function of that body were 
limited solely to informing passengers of their rights in relation to lodging an 
individual claim. 
Relevant legislation 
9 Article 16(1) and (2) of the Regulation: 
‘1. Each Member State shall designate a body responsible for the enforcement 
of this Regulation as regards flights from airports situated on its territory and 
flights from a third country to such airports. Where appropriate, this body shall 
take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected. 
The Member States shall inform the Commission of the body that has been 
designated in accordance with this paragraph. 
2. Without prejudice to Article 12, each passenger may complain to any body 
designated under paragraph 1, or to any other competent body designated by a 
Member State, about an alleged infringement of this Regulation at any airport 
situated on the territory of a Member State or concerning any flight from a third 
country to an airport situated on that territory.’ 
10 Article 43/A(2) of the Law on Consumer Protection: 
‘The consumer protection authority ― in contact, where necessary, with the 
aviation authority ― shall be responsible for enforcing Regulation (EU) 
2017/2394 as regards infringements of [Regulation (EC) No 261/2004] within the 
European Union.’ 
Statement of reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
11 In Ruijssenaars and Others, the Court of Justice stated that the consumer 
protection authority is not required to compel airlines to pay compensation. 
However, in his Opinion in that case, the Advocate General had taken the view 
that the consumer protection authority does not have the power to compel 
payment of compensation because this is a matter for the civil courts. 
12 Having regard to the above, the reference for a preliminary ruling is necessary in 
order to determine whether, in Ruijssenaars and Others, the Court of Justice 
replied that that authority ‘is not required’ to compel payment of compensation 
because (a) this was the point specifically raised in the question put by the 
Netherlands referring court or (b) it wished to distance itself from the opinion 
expressed by the Advocate General. 
LOT 
 
5 
13 This is relevant because the Netherlands situation which gave rise to the judgment 
of the Court of Justice in Ruijssenaars and Others is not the same as the situation 
in Hungary in that, as can be seen from the grounds in that judgment, in the 
Netherlands the civil courts hear claims from passengers for compensation, while 
the consumer protection authority systematically rejects applications for 
compensation submitted to it. In legal proceedings of this nature brought by a 
passenger whose claim had been refused, the Netherlands administrative court 
asked whether the consumer protection authority ‘is required’ to compel the 
airline to pay compensation. The Court of Justice replied that it ‘is not required’ to 
do so, despite the fact that the Advocate General had recommended in his Opinion 
that it should reply more broadly that ‘it is not authorised’ to do so; the latter reply 
would also be relevant to the situation in Hungary. 
14 The judgment of the Court of Justice in Ruijssenaars and Others illustrates the 
interpretative approach taken by the Court of Justice but does not provide a direct 
response to the situation in Hungary where, although action can also be pursued 
through the civil courts, the consumer protection authority systematically compels 
airlines to pay compensation. 
15 Pursuant to Article 43/A(2) of the Law on Consumer Protection, the consumer 
protection authority, which is the designated national body responsible for 
enforcing the Regulation, has general jurisdiction in matters concerning breaches 
of the Regulation. The Law on Consumer Protection gives that authority power to 
impose certain legal consequences in the event of breach of a consumer protection 
provision (for example, to require the ceasing of irregularities or shortcomings 
that have been identified, to impose fines, and so forth). However, beyond that 
general designation, Hungarian legislation does not expressly authorise the 
national enforcement body to take enforcement action to compel payment of 
compensation in the event of breach of the Regulation. 
16 In order to reach a decision in the main proceedings, it is necessary to clarify 
whether, under EU law, the national enforcement body has power to compel 
payment of compensation since, pursuant to Article 92(1)(a) of the a közigazgatási 
perrendtartásról szóló 2017. évi I. törvény (Law I of 2017 on the Administrative 
Courts […]), a decision taken by an administrative authority without the power to 
do so must be annulled without an examination of the substance, and the court 
must examine of its own motion whether there are grounds for annulment. 
17 Moreover, the fact that in some Member States of the European Union it is 
possible to ask the national enforcement body to compel airlines to pay 
compensation while in other Member States the only remedy is through the courts, 
may give rise to legal uncertainty at a European level, and to conflicts of 
jurisdiction, parallel proceedings and forum shopping. 
18 […] 
19 […] [procedural matters of domestic law] 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 27. 10. 2020 – CASE C-597/20 
 
6  
Budapest, 27 October 2020. 
[…] [signatures]