Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2022:978
Date: 2022-12-02
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Anonymised version 
Translation C-229/22 – 1 
Case C-229/22 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
29 March 2022 
Referring court: 
Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
25 January 2022 
Appellant: 
NC 
Respondent: 
Compania Națională de Transporturi Aeriene Tarom SA 
  
… 
TRIBUNALUL SPECIALIZAT CLUJ (Specialist Court, Cluj, Romania) 
… 
Public hearing of 25 January 2022 
… 
The appeal brought by the appellant NC against the respondent COMPANIA 
NAȚIONALĂ DE TRANSPORTURI AERIENE TAROM SA (national airline 
Tarom SA) has been registered …; the case at first instance concerns civil 
contractual liability. 
… [procedural aspects] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 1. 2022 – CASE C-229/22 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
THE TRIBUNALUL 
Ruling on whether it is appropriate to submit a request [to the Court of Justice of 
the European Union]: 
A. Considers the facts to be as follows: 
1 Mr NC, the appellant, purchased from the respondent COMPANIA NAȚIONALĂ 
DE TRANSPORTURI AERIENE TAROM SA a ticket for a flight on 18 May 
2020 from Cluj-Napoca to Bucharest. 
2 The flight in question … was scheduled to depart from Cluj-Napoca on 18 May 
2020 at 19.40 and to land in Bucharest the same day, 18 May 2020, at 20.50. 
3 At 18.00 on 18 May 2020, when checking in at ‘Avram Iancu’ International 
Airport in Cluj-Napoca, the appellant was informed that the flight from Cluj-
Napoca to Bucharest had been replaced by a flight with an intermediate stop, 
namely Cluj-Napoca – Iași – Bucharest, departing Cluj-Napoca at 19.55 and 
expected to arrive in Bucharest at 22.30. 
4 The appellant accepted the flight in question, which departed Cluj-Napoca at 
19.55 and arrived in Bucharest at 22.30. 
5 The appellant emailed a complaint to the respondent on 18 May 2020, requesting 
from it … compensation [of] EUR 250, but the respondent refused to pay the 
compensation requested by … [the appellant]. 
6 By an action registered with the Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca (Court of First Instance, 
Cluj-Napoca, Romania) on 17 August 2020 …, the appellant requested that the 
court of first instance deliver a judgment ordering the respondent to pay to him the 
amount of EUR 250 as compensation, on the basis of Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation 
(EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council …, in 
conjunction with Article 7(1)(a) thereof, for the cancellation of the flight … on 
18 May 2020, and the relevant statutory interest for late payment calculated from 
the date of the event until full and effective repayment of the principal debt, plus 
costs. 
7 By civil judgment [of] … 26 February 2021 …, the Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca 
dismissed the action brought by the appellant … as unfounded, on the ground that 
the appellant had sustained a time loss of one hour and 40 minutes, or more 
precisely had reached the final destination, Bucharest, one hour and 40 minutes 
after the time of arrival originally scheduled by the air carrier, and that the 
exception laid down in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 
applied. Therefore, in the light of that provision of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, 
since [the appellant] …. arrived at his destination less than two hours after the 
scheduled time of arrival, the Judecătoria Cluj-Napoca held that the appellant was 
COMPANIA NAȚIONALĂ DE TRANSPORTURI AERIENE TAROM 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
not entitled to the compensation provided for under Article 7(1)(a) of that 
regulation. 
8 By an appeal lodged against that judgment, the appellant relied on, inter alia, the 
fact that the re-routed Cluj-Napoca – Iași – Bucharest flight on 18 May 2020 did 
not depart at most one hour before the scheduled time of departure, and therefore 
the exception laid down in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 did 
not apply in this case. 
B. With regard to the national law applicable 
9 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 is directly applicable in 
Romanian domestic law. 
10 The Romanian-language version of Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) 
No 261/2004, in the version of that normative act published in OJ 2007, vol. 12, 
pp. 218 to 224, reads as follows: 
‘(1) În cazul anulării unui zbor, pasagerilor în cauză trebuie: (…) 
(c) să primească o compensație din partea operatorului de transport aerian, 
în conformitate cu articolul 7, cu excepția în care intervine oricare din 
următoarele: (…) 
(iii) în cazul în care sunt informați despre această anulare cu mai puțin de șapte 
zile înainte de ora de plecare prevăzută și li se oferă o redirecționare care să 
le permită să plece cel târziu 1 cu o oră înainte de ora de plecare prevăzută 
și să ajungă la destinația finală în mai puțin de două ore după ora de sosire 
prevăzută.’ 
11 The expression ‘cel târziu cu o oră înainte de ora de plecare prevăzută’, in the 
above context, means that the exception laid down in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of 
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies only if the re-routed flight departs more 
than one hour before the scheduled time of departure ([for example,] if, in the 
present case, the initial flight was due to depart at 19.40, the exception would have 
been relevant only if the re-routed flight had departed at 18.40 at the latest). 
12 In the temporal past-future sequence, the expression ‘cel târziu’ (at the latest) 
defines a moment ad quem and not a moment a quo. 
 
1 Translator’s note: there is an error in the Romanian translation of the regulation. It should state 
‘mai devreme’ [earlier] rather than ‘târziu’ [at the latest].  
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 1. 2022 – CASE C-229/22 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
13 The meaning of Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the 
Romanian-language version, as reproduced above, appears to be at odds with the 
meaning of Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 in the English- 
and French-language versions: 
‘1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall: […] 
(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in 
accordance with Article 7, unless: […] 
(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the 
scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them 
to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of 
departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after 
the scheduled time of arrival’. 
‘1. En cas d’annulation d’un vol, les passagers concernés: […] 
c) ont droit à une indemnisation du transporteur aérien effectif 
conformément à l’article 7, à moins qu’ils soient informés de l’annulation du 
vol: […] 
iii) moins de sept jours avant l’heure de départ prévue si on leur offre un 
réacheminement leur permettant de partir au plus tôt une heure avant 
l’heure de départ prévue et d’atteindre leur destination finale moins de 
deux heures après l’heure prévue d’arrivée’. 
14 Both the English phrase ‘no more than one hour before the scheduled time of 
departure’ and the French phrase ‘au plus tôt une heure avant l’heure de départ 
prévue’ appear to define a time a quo which, in Romanian, would be translated as 
‘nu mai [devreme] de o oră înainte de ora de plecare prevăzută’ (‘no earlier than 
one hour before the scheduled time of departure’). 
15 We have not identified any relevant case-law, either national case-law or case-law 
of any other Member State of the European Union. It would appear possible to 
conclude from the abundant case-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 that the exception laid down in 
Article 5(1)(c)(iii) is applicable if the delay suffered by the passenger does not 
exceed three hours (departure no more than one hour before the scheduled time of 
departure and arrival no more than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival), 
but given that all the language versions of European legislation are equivalent, any 
semantic inconsistency as described above cannot be remedied by interpretation. 
COMPANIA NAȚIONALĂ DE TRANSPORTURI AERIENE TAROM 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
C. As regards the provisions of EU law relevant to the present case and 
the reasons which have led the referring court, the Tribunalul Specializat 
Cluj (Specialised Court, Cluj), to refer the question concerning the 
interpretation of the provisions of EU law and the link between those 
provisions of EU law and the legislation applicable to the main proceedings, 
the Tribunalul [Specializat Cluj] considers that, as illustrated above, it is necessary 
in the present case for the Court of Justice to determine the correct interpretation 
of Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. 
16 … [text of the question referred reproduced without amendment in comparison 
with the operative part]. 
17 The decision which the referring court will adopt, as regards whether or not the 
respondent air carrier is exempt from the obligation to pay the appellant the 
compensation sought, turns on the answer to that question. 
18 The Tribunalul takes account of the fact that, as stated in the case-law of the Court 
of Justice in Case C-561/19: 
‘42. To begin with, it must be borne in mind that EU legislation is drafted in 
several languages and that the different language versions are all equally authentic 
(judgment of 6 October 1982, Cilfit and Others, 283/81, EU:C:1982:335, 
paragraph 18). 
43. According to the Court’s settled case-law, one language version of a 
provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that 
provision or be made to override the other language versions. Provisions of EU 
law must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing 
in all languages of the European Union (see, inter alia, judgment of 24 March 
2021, A, C-950/19, EU:C:2021:230, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). 
44. While a national court or tribunal of last instance cannot be required to 
examine, in that regard, each of the language versions of the provision in question, 
the fact remains that it must bear in mind those divergences between the various 
language versions of that provision of which it is aware, in particular when those 
divergences are set out by the parties and are verified. 
45. It must also be borne in mind that EU law uses terminology which is 
peculiar to it and legal concepts that do not necessarily have the same meaning as 
the corresponding concepts that may exist in the law of the Member States (see, to 
that effect, judgment of 6 October 1982, Cilfit and Others, 283/81, 
EU:C:1982:335, paragraph 19)’. … 
Positions of the parties 
19 In written observations lodged on 4 January 2022, the appellant stated that he did 
not oppose a request for a preliminary ruling on the questions [set out below] 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 1. 2022 – CASE C-229/22 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
being made to the Court of Justice. He set out the case-law which he considered 
relevant, showing that the Romanian-language version of Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of 
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is inadequate. 
The respondent did not state its view on whether or not it is appropriate for a 
request for a preliminary ruling on the questions [set out below] to be referred to 
the Court of Justice. 
The Tribunalul Specializat di Cluj considers it necessary to refer the 
questions [set out below] to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling 
20 In the light of Article 42(1)(1) of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, under 
which it is incompatible for a court to rule on a situation if it has previously 
expressed its opinion on the outcome of the case allocated to it for judgment, the 
Tribunalul Specializat Cluj will not express its point of view as to the answer to be 
given to the question[s] referred for a preliminary ruling . 
… [text of the question[s] referred reproduced without amendment in 
comparison with the operative part] 
 
ON THOSE GROUNDS, 
IN THE NAME OF THE LAW, 
[THE TRIBUNALUL] ORDERS, 
of its own motion, that a request for a preliminary ruling on the following 
questions be submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 
Must Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 be interpreted: 
(a) as meaning that an air carrier is exempt from paying compensation in 
the case where the passengers concerned are informed of the cancellation less 
than seven days before the time of departure and are offered re-routing to 
enable them to depart at the latest one hour before the scheduled time of 
departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours … [after] 
the scheduled time of arrival 
or, conversely, 
(b) as meaning that an air carrier is exempt from paying compensation in 
the case where the passengers concerned are informed of the cancellation less 
than seven days before the time of departure and are offered re-routing to 
enable them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of 
departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours … [after] 
the scheduled time of arrival? 
COMPANIA NAȚIONALĂ DE TRANSPORTURI AERIENE TAROM 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
… [procedure and signatures]