Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:122
Date: 2015-02-26
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 26 February 2015 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Scope — Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air — Included (Art. 267 TFEU; 1999 Montreal Convention) 2. Transport — Air transport — Regulation No 785/2004 — Air carrier liability in the event of accidents — Definition of passenger — Occupant of a helicopter held by a Union air carrier, carried on the basis of a contract between his employer and that carrier in order to perform a specific task — Included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 785/2004, Art. 3(g)) 3. Transport — Air transport — Regulation No 785/2004 — Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air — Air carrier liability in the event of accidents — Same definition of passenger under the Regulation and the Convention — Condition — Presence of a contract of carriage within the meaning of the Convention, irrespective of its form (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 785/2004, Art. 3(g); 1999 Montreal Convention, Art. 3(1), (2) and 5, and 17) 1. The Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air forms an integral part of the European Union legal order and the Court has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling concerning its interpretation. (see para. 33) 2. Article 3(g) of Regulation No 785/2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators must be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier, who is carried on the basis of a contract between his employer and that air carrier in order to perform a specific task is a passenger within the meaning of that provision. If the occupant does not perform tasks of the flight crew of the aircraft he does not fall into the category of member of the flight crew. Similarly, the fact that that occupant has the task of opening the helicopter door at the pilot’s direction does not suffice to confer on him the status of member of the cabin crew, since the pilot is always authorised to give instructions to any of the people on board the aircraft, including the passengers. (see paras 27-31, operative part 1) 3. Article 17 of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air must be interpreted as meaning that a person who comes within the definition of passenger within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Regulation No 785/2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators also comes within the definition of passenger within the meaning of Article 17 of that convention, once that person has been carried on the basis of a contract of carriage within the meaning of Article 3 of that convention. Although under Article 3(1) and (2) of the Montreal Convention the status of passenger is linked to the issuance of an individual or collective document of carriage, it follows from Article 3(5) of that convention that non-compliance with the provisions of the paragraphs preceding that paragraph do not affect the existence or the validity of the contract of carriage, which, none the less, is to be subject to the rules of that convention, including those relating to limitation of liability. Accordingly, where a contract of carriage exists and all the other conditions for the application of that convention are fulfilled, it applies, irrespective of which form that contract of carriage might take. (see paras 37-39, 42, operative part 2)