Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2020:187
Date: 2020-03-10
Language of the case: Portuguese
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Portugal

Anonymised version 
Translation C-766/19 — 1 
Case C-766/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
18 October 2019 
Referring court: 
Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Juízo Local Cível de 
Ponta Delgada — Juiz 3) (Azores District Court (Ponta Delgada 
Local Civil Court — Court No 3), Portugal) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
9 July 2019 
Applicants: 
QE 
RD 
Defendant: 
SATA Internacional — Serviços de Transportes Aéreos SA 
Third party defendant: 
ANA — Aeroportos de Portugal, S.A. 
  
Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Açores (Azores District Court) 
Juízo Local Cível de Ponta Delgada — Juiz 3 (Ponta Delgada Local Civil 
Court — Court No 3) 
... 
Ordinary Proceedings 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 7. 2019 — CASE C-766/19 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
... 
Having examined the case-file, this court has established the following: 
... 
- in the [present proceedings] ... an application has been submitted requesting that 
a reference be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 
preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Regulation 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], namely whether an interruption to the fuel supply 
constitutes ‘extraordinary circumstances’ in accordance with [Article] 5(3) of that 
regulation. 
 
... the defendant SATA bases its defence on the fact that on the day in question 
there was an extensive interruption to the fuel supply at Lisbon airport. 
Consequently, it proposed ... that a request for a [preliminary] ruling be made in 
order to determine whether that interruption constitutes ‘extraordinary 
circumstances’ in accordance with and for the purposes of [Article] 5(3) of that 
regulation. 
... 
With regard to the request for a preliminary ruling, the third party defendant 
stated that, although it agrees with its content, it does not consider this to be the 
most appropriate point in the proceedings for making that request. 
... 
... [Procedural question concerning the application to join ANA — Aeroportos de 
Portugal, S.A. to the proceedings] 
* 
Consideration of the reference [for a preliminary ruling] 
The defendant submitted an application requesting that a reference [for a 
preliminary ruling] be made to the CJEU in relation to the interpretation of a rule 
of law of the European Union, specifically [Article] 5(3) of Regulation 
No 261/2004. 
In the first place, it must be stated that this court fully agrees with the 
considerations on EU law set out in that application. 
SATA INTERNACIONAL 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
With regard to the appropriate point in the proceedings for making the referral, the 
court considers this to be the appropriate time. It is apparent from the documents 
in the court file ... that there was indeed an interruption to the fuel supply (the first 
ever recorded at the airport) on the day in question. Therefore, in view of that 
application, together with other documentary evidence already on the court file, 
the necessary evidence has been adduced. 
... [Submissions relating to national procedure] 
Moreover, it is only with the interpretation of the CJEU that the parties will be 
able to reach a settlement. 
The question raised by the defendant is therefore entirely appropriate. 
* 
Consequently: 
1. ... [Decision on the disjoinder] 
2. ... [Decision on the application to join ANA — Aeroportos de Portugal, 
S.A. to the proceedings] 
3. This court hereby stays the present proceedings pursuant to [Article] 
272 of the Civil Procedure Code and refers the following question to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
(a) Must an event such as the one that occurred on 10 May 2017 at the 
Lisbon airport, when there was an extensive and significant 
interruption to the fuel supply making it impossible to refuel aircraft 
due to a malfunction in the pumping system that impeded the 
transfer of fuel to the plate system, which system is the responsibility 
of the airport infrastructure managing entities, and which 
malfunction impacted the continuous functioning and operability of 
that airport, resulting in delays and cancellations of 473 flights, of 
which 12 were diverted, 98 cancelled and 363 delayed, affecting more 
than 41 000 passengers, be classified as ‘extraordinary 
circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation 
No 261/2004 exempting air carriers from the obligation to pay 
compensation? 
(b) Did an airline use all means and alternatives at its disposal in order 
to limit the delay to a flight when, as a result of not being able to 
refuel at Lisbon airport for the aforementioned reason, it decided to 
refuel at an alternative close-by airport (Porto), and when, as a result 
of the delay caused by the late departure from Lisbon airport and the 
refuelling at another airport, which meant that the crew members of 
that aircraft no longer had any flight duty time available which, 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 7. 2019 — CASE C-766/19 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
under the applicable legal provisions, would have enabled them to 
complete the flight that had been delayed, it resorted to entering into 
an operational leasing agreement (ACMI) with another airline in 
order to complete that flight? 
... [subsequent procedural step] 
* 
... [date and signature]