Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:886
Date: 2023-11-16
Language of the case: Slovak
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Slovakia

Anonymised version 
Translation C-283/22 - 1 
Case C-283/22 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
26 April 2022 
Referring court: 
Okresný súd Prešov (Slovakia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
29 March 2022 
Applicant: 
DZ 
EO 
YV 
YE 
MP 
Defendant: 
Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky 
  
ECLI:SK:OSPO:2022:8118204177.22 
ORDER AS RECTIFIED BY ORDER OF 1 JUNE 2022 
The Okresný súd Prešov (District Court, Prešov, Slovakia) in the case brought by 
the applicants: 1./ DZ, […] 2./ EO, […] 3./ YV, […], 4./ YE, […] 5./ MP, […] 
[…] against the defendant: Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky 
(Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic) […] Bratislava – Staré Mesto, 
Slovak Republic, […] with the participation of intervener no 1 in support of the 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 3. 2022 – CASE C-283/22 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
defendant: KOOPERATIVA poisťovňa, a.s. Vienna Insurance Group, established 
in […] Bratislava, […] with the participation of intervener no 2 in support of the 
defendant: Generali poisťovňa, a.s., established in […] Bratislava, seeking 
compensation, 
makes the following order: 
To stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of 
the European Union for a preliminary ruling, pursuant to Paragraph 162(1)(c) of 
the Civilný sporový poriadok (Code of Contentious Civil Procedure): 
1. Must Article 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air 
carriers and aircraft operators be interpreted as meaning that a person 
– who is not on board a helicopter of a [Union] air carrier, but who is suspended 
from a hoist cable as an integral piece of equipment (or component) of the 
helicopter while the helicopter is in flight and who was lifted along with the 
ascent of the helicopter (as a result of being suspended from the hoist cable); 
– who was transported as part of a free transport operation provided by the State 
(a State helicopter used in police services) as a carrier under a ‘carriage 
contract’ between the air carrier (State) and the employer of the person 
performing a special task (namely, on the basis of an uznesenie vlády 
Slovenskej republiky č. 411/2006 Z.z., of 10. mája 2006 k návrhu zásad 
vykonávania letov lietadiel v policajných službách (Decree No 411/2006 of the 
Government of the Slovak Republic of 10 May 2006 on the proposed 
arrangements for the implementation of air flights in police services) and the 
nariade Ministerstva vnútra Slovenskej republiky č. 50/2012 zo dňa 14 March 
2012 o vyžadovaní a schvaľovaní letov (Decree No 50/2012 of the Ministry of 
the Interior of the Slovak Republic of 14 March 2012 on the need for flights 
and their approval), which provided that the aircraft of the air carrier would 
perform flights in order to ensure the performance of the tasks of the employer 
of the person concerned]; 
– the purpose of the carriage was to perform a special task such as that at issue in 
the main proceedings {performance of a service task consisting in the 
specialised training of officers of the Hasičský a záchranný zbor (fire-fighting 
and rescue unit) using aerial equipment (helicopter) in the form of a crane 
hoisting exercise for rescuer and [rescued]}, 
and 
– who was participating in a task as a trainee member of a firefighting module 
attached to the helicopter by means of a hoist cable as an integral piece of 
equipment (or component) of the helicopter on the instructions of the 
helicopter’s pilot and operator, and was to be hoisted aboard the helicopter 
during the flight, 
MINISTERSTVO VNÚTRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
a) is a passenger 
or 
b) a member of the flight crew or cabin crew? 
2. Must Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules 
for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed 
by the European Community on 9 December 1999 pursuant to Article 300(2) EC 
and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, be 
interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances set out in the first question, such 
person is deemed to be: 
a) a passenger 
or 
b) a member of the flight crew or a member of the cabin crew? 
3. Can the use of the State helicopter on 10 May 2017 be regarded as carriage 
within the meaning of Article 2(1) [and] Article 1 of the Convention for the 
Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at 
Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 
1999 pursuant to Article 300(2) EC and approved on its behalf by Council 
Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001? 
Grounds: 
1 The applicants are the immediate survivors of NK, […], who died on 10 May 
2017 as a result of a tragic event that took place on 10 May 2017 and involved the 
fall of a Bell 429 police helicopter in the military sector of Prešov airport and 
which helicopter is/was owned and operated by the Ministry of the Interior of the 
Slovak Republic, namely, the defendant. 
2 Description of the tragic event: In preparation for the flight, the pilot focused on 
an exercise consisting in the ‘Evacuation and rescue of persons in difficult to 
access terrain using the helicopter’s on-board crane.’ Fourteen officers of the 
firefighting and rescue unit participated in the exercise. The purpose of the 
exercise was to train and coach the officers of a firefighting and rescue unit on a 
new type of Bell 429 helicopter and this involved the evacuation and rescue of 
people from difficult to access terrain using the helicopter's on-board crane. Prior 
to the start of this exercise, ground preparation was carried out during which the 
participants in the exercise were informed about what the exercise would involve. 
The exercise was divided into four stages. […] [technical description]. The final, 
fourth part of the exercise involved the hoisting by means of crane of a pair 
consisting of a rescuer and a rescued person on a stretcher. The first pair 
assigned to this part of the training comprised NK as the rescuer and BR as the 
rescued person. […] [technical description of the helicopter accident]. The pilot 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 3. 2022 – CASE C-283/22 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
of the helicopter radioed the exercise participants requesting them to approach 
the helicopter. Following this, the colleagues unhooked BR from the stretcher, 
took the stretcher and then moved to the place where the helicopter was waiting in 
hovering mode. At this point, they reattached BR to the stretcher, the helicopter 
operator lowered the hoisting cable and NK, in his role as rescuer, tied himself 
and the stretcher to the cable. The operator began winding in the cable, and after 
winding it up to the level of the helicopter’s landing gear skids, the pilot was 
informed by the operator that he could begin his departure for the route. […] 
[S]lightly tilting the helicopter to the right, the operator was to lift the exercise 
participants […] higher […] by means of the crane. Then, two seconds later, the 
helicopter tilted to the right again, but at a much greater angle. The helicopter 
was already in its descent phase with a large angle of heel to the right. […] 
[technical description of the helicopter accident] In the seconds that followed, the 
flight ended with the helicopter hitting the ground. 
3 The applicants are seeking compensation for non-material damage: For the first 
applicant, EUR 550 000, for the second applicant, EUR 350 000, for the third 
applicant, EUR 350 000, for the fourth applicant, EUR 150 000, and for the fifth 
applicant, EUR 150 000. The applicants base their claim on the relevant 
regulations in the field of civil aviation, which take precedence over the laws of 
the Slovak Republic, and on the legal regime established by the national legal 
system in Paragraph 13(1). 2 [Občiansky zákonník (Civil Code)] as regards the 
application by analogy of the combined provisions of Paragraph 427 (Občiansky 
zákonník) et seq., read in conjunction with Paragraph 853(1) [Občiansky 
zákonník]. 
4 The applicants believe that Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air 
carriers and aircraft operators and the Convention for the Unification of Certain 
Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, 
signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 pursuant to 
Article 300(2) EC and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC 
of 5 April 2001, are applicable in the present case. 
5 The defendant disputes such finding. It believes that the Montreal Convention and 
the European Union Regulations in the field of civil aviation cannot be applied to 
the present case because they clearly apply only to a person with the status of 
‘passenger’, which the deceased, NK, was not. At the time of the tragic event, the 
deceased was a member of a firefighting module, and the tragic event occurred 
during an exercise involving the training and coaching of officers belonging to the 
firefighting and rescue unit, and for that reason, the defendant takes the view that 
the deceased can be regarded as a member of the ‘cabin crew’. The defendant 
further submitted that the definition of a ‘flight for passengers’ could not be 
applied in the present case as the deceased officer did not board or disembark the 
helicopter, was not on board the helicopter, but was suspended from the 
equipment (hoist cable) of the helicopter. 
MINISTERSTVO VNÚTRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
6 The applicants, by contrast, argue that the deceased NK was a ‘passenger’ in that 
he was not the pilot of the aircraft equipment used (namely, the helicopter) and 
did not hold the position of a member of the flight/cabin crew in so far as his task 
was not to carry out any activity in connection with the control of the helicopter, 
but his task was merely to be a member of the firefighting module and to carry out 
a specific activity in connection with the use of the aircraft equipment (the 
helicopter). With respect to the flight, the applicants submitted that hoisting 
should be understood as the process by which a cable is lowered from a helicopter 
(which, at the time of lowering the cable, is in the flight phase, hovering at an 
altitude above the terrain) and then a person or cargo is hoisted on board by means 
of a cable connected to the helicopter, namely, it is the act by which persons or 
cargo are hoisted on board the helicopter by means of a winch and that is 
performed while the helicopter is in flight. In the present case, therefore, that can 
be deemed a specific way by means of which the passengers participating in the 
exercise (the deceased NK and the deceased BR) boarded the helicopter, which 
was in the flight phase during the ‘hoisting by crane’, and whereby the passengers 
are being/are to be lifted (hoisted) on board the helicopter using the hoisting crane 
and winch (attached to the helicopter which is then in the flight phase). 
7 As regards the third question, intervener no 1 disputes the applicability of the 
Montreal Convention in the present case, in so far as it believes that the use of a 
public helicopter on 10 May 2017 cannot be regarded as a ‘carriage’ within the 
meaning of the Montreal Convention and the international civil aviation 
regulatory system. It believes that the essence of the concept of carriage consists 
in bringing passengers and cargo from a place of departure to a place of 
destination. The concept of carriage must be understood in the context of 
international civil aviation, so that the extension of the application of air carrier 
liability rules to carriage by the State must be examined in the light of the 
meaning of the concept of carriage and its meaning in the context of standard civil 
aviation (non-State). Intervener no 1 believes that under the international and 
European civil aviation regulatory system, there is a serious definitional difference 
between the operation of passenger carriage involving use of a State helicopter 
and the use of a State helicopter for the purpose of performing the tasks of a 
firefighting and rescue unit. Intervener no 1 believes that the purpose of the 
provision of Article 2(1) of the Montreal Convention is to ensure that the 
Convention also applies to State aircraft only to the extent that they perform 
carriage – whether for remuneration or not – with, however, the sole purpose of 
the operation consisting in the carriage of passengers or cargo from a place of 
departure to a place of destination, and that, on interpretation, cannot be confused 
with the operation of a State aircraft for the purpose of performing the tasks of 
public servants, the essence of which is not carriage from a place of departure to a 
place of destination. At the same time, an important element of the definition of 
carriage contained in Article 1(1) of the Montreal Convention is the contract 
between the parties, not any contract, but a contract that ensures the provision of 
carriage, that is to say [relating to] the very essence of the carriage of a passenger 
or cargo from a place of departure to a place of destination, which should not be 
confused, unjustifiably, with another operational contract the essence of which is 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 3. 2022 – CASE C-283/22 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
not carriage, nor should the contract of carriage be confused with the regulatory 
provision under which a police helicopter is also designated for the performance 
of the tasks of a firefighting and rescue unit. 
8 European Union law: 
According to Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council on insurance requirements for air carriers and 
aircraft operators (‘Regulation [No 785/2004]’), ‘The objective of this Regulation 
is to establish minimum insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft 
operators in respect of passengers, baggage, cargo and third parties.’ 
Pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation [No 785/2004], ‘This Regulation shall 
apply to all air carriers and aircraft operators flying within, into, out of, or over 
the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies’. 
According to Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation [No 785/2004], ‘This Regulation shall 
not apply to State aircraft as referred to in Article 3(b) of the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, signed at Chicago on 7 December 1944’. 
According to Article 3(g) of Regulation [No 785/2004], ‘for the purposes of this 
Regulation, “passenger” means any person who is on a flight with the consent of 
the air carrier or the aircraft operator, excluding on-duty members of both the 
flight crew and the cabin crew’. 
In accordance with Article 1 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain 
Rules for International Carriage by Air of 28 May 1999 (‘the Montreal 
Convention’) 
1. This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or 
cargo performed by aircraft for reward. It applies equally to gratuitous carriage 
by aircraft performed by an air transport undertaking. 
2. For the purposes of this Convention, the expression international carriage 
means any carriage in which, according to the agreement between the parties, the 
place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in 
the carriage or a transhipment, are situated either within the territories of two 
States Parties, or within the territory of a single State Party if there is an agreed 
stopping place within the territory of another State, even if that State is not a State 
Party. Carriage between two points within the territory of a single State Party 
without an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State is not 
international carriage for the purposes of this Convention. 
3. Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers is deemed, for the 
purposes of this Convention, to be one undivided carriage if it has been regarded 
by the parties as a single operation, whether it had been agreed upon under the 
form of a single contract or of a series of contracts, and it does not lose its 
MINISTERSTVO VNÚTRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
international character merely because one contract or a series of contracts is to 
be performed entirely within the territory of the same State. 
4. This Convention applies also to carriage as set out in Chapter V, subject to 
the terms contained therein. 
According to Article 2(1) of the Montreal Convention, ‘This Convention applies 
to carriage performed by the State or by legally constituted public bodies 
provided it falls within the conditions laid down in Article 1’. 
According to Article 17(1), ‘The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of 
death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which 
caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any 
of the operations of embarking or disembarking’. 
According to Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier 
liability in the event of accidents, ‘This Convention applies to carriage performed 
by the State or by legally constituted public bodies provided it falls within the 
conditions laid down in Article 1’. 
9 In view of the contentious nature of the interpretation of the concepts of passenger 
and carriage contained in the Regulation [No 785/2004] and the Montreal 
Convention, the court, pursuant to Paragraph 162(1)(c) of the zákon č. 160/2015 
Z.z. Civilný sporový poriadok (Law No 160/2015 establishing the Code of 
Contentious Civil Procedure), has stayed the proceedings pending service of the 
relevant decision of the Court of Justice, as it considers it necessary to take 
account of the Court of Justice’s answer to the questions in the operative part of 
this order. 
[information concerning appeals] 
[…]