Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:618
Date: 2015-09-17
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber), 17 September 2015 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Question manifestly without relevance (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Differences between the various language versions — General scheme and purpose of the rules in question as a reference point (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004) 3. Transport — Air transport — Regulation No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope — Passengers departing from an airport in a third country to an airport in a Member State — Included — Condition — Equivalence of the benefits provided in the third country with those laid down by the regulation (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004) 4. Transport — Air transport — Regulation No 261/2004 — Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Condition — Extraordinary circumstances —Definition — Restrictive interpretation — Technical problem inherent in the exercise of the activity of the carrier — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 5(3)) 5. Transport — Air transport — Regulation No 261/2004 — Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Condition — Extraordinary circumstances — Definition — Unexpected technical problem not attributable to poor maintenance which was not detected during routine maintenance checks — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 5(3)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 20) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 25) 3. Regulation No 261/2004 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 No 295/91, as is clear from recitals 1 and 2 in the preamble thereto, aims to ensure a high level of protection for passengers. Although Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation, read in the light of that objective, does not require it to be proved that the passenger concerned has actually obtained the benefits or compensation and assistance in a third country, the mere possibility of entitlement cannot of itself justify the conclusion that the regulation is not applicable to that passenger. It cannot be accepted that a passenger may be deprived of the protection granted by Regulation No 261/2004 solely on the ground that he may benefit from some compensation in the third country, without any evidence that that compensation corresponds to the purpose of the compensation guaranteed by that regulation or that the conditions to which the beneficiary is subject and the various means of implementing it are equivalent to those provided for by that regulation. (see paras 26-28) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 35-38) 5. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 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 No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem which occurred unexpectedly, which is not attributable to poor maintenance and which was also not detected during routine maintenance checks, does not fall within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision. In that connection, although a breakdown caused by the premature malfunction of certain components of an aircraft, do indeed constitute an unexpected event, the fact remains that such a breakdown remains intrinsically linked to the very complex operating system of the aircraft, which is operated by the air carrier in conditions, particularly meteorological conditions, which are often difficult or even extreme, it being understood moreover that no component of an aircraft lasts forever. Therefore, in the course of the activities of an air carrier, that unexpected event is inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity, as air carriers are confronted as a matter of course with unexpected technical problems. Furthermore, the prevention of such a breakdown or the repairs occasioned by it, including the replacement of a prematurely defective component, is not beyond the actual control of that carrier, since the latter is required to ensure the maintenance and proper functioning of the aircraft it operates for the purposes of its business. (see paras 41-44, 49, operative part)