Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:637
Date: 2019-07-29
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bacău (Romania) lodged on 30 May 2018 — Radu-Lucian Rusu and Oana-Maria Rusu v SC Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions SRL (Case C-354/18) Language of the case: Romanian Referring court Tribunalul Bacău Parties to the main proceedings Appellants, applicants at first instance: Radu-Lucian Rusu and Oana-Maria Rusu Appellant, defendant at first instance: SC Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions SRL Questions referred 1. Is the amount of EUR 400 provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 1 intended to compensate primarily for the material damage, with the non-material damage being assessed pursuant to Article 12 thereof, or does Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation primarily cover the non-material damage, with the material damage being subject to Article 12 thereof? 2. Does an amount corresponding to a loss of salary which exceeds the amount of EUR 400 established by Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation fall within the concept of further compensation referred to in Article 12 thereof? 3. Under the second sentence of Article 12(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, ‘the compensation granted under this Regulation may be deducted from such compensation’. Should that provision be interpreted as leaving it to the national court’s discretion to deduct the amount awarded under Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation from the further compensation, or is that deduction compulsory? 4. In the event that the deduction of that amount is not compulsory, what are the elements on the basis of which the national court is to decide whether to deduct the amount referred to in Article 7(1)(b) from the further compensation? 5. Should the damage caused as a result of the non-payment of salary, owing to the fact that an employee was unable to be present at work by reason of his delayed arrival at his destination as a result of re-routing, be analysed from the perspective of fulfilment of the obligations provided for in Article 8 [of Regulation No 261/2004], or Article 12 [of that regulation], read in conjunction with Article 4 [thereof]? 6. Does an airline operator’s fulfilment of the obligation to provide assistance under Article 4(3) and Article 8 of Regulation No 261/2004 mean presenting a passenger with comprehensive information regarding all that passenger’s re-routing options as provided for in Article 8(1)(a), (b) and (c) of that regulation? 7. With whom does the burden of proving that passengers were re-routed at the earliest opportunity under Article 8 of Regulation No 261/2004 rest? 8. Does [Regulation No 261/2004] impose an obligation on passengers to make inquiries in order to identify other routes to their destination and to ask a company to find seats on those routes, or is the airline obliged to look, of its own motion, for the most advantageous option whereby a passenger may be transported to his destination? 9. Is the fact that passengers accepted an airline’s proposal offering them a flight on 11 September 2016, although they could assume that they would not be paid for the period during which they were absent from work, relevant for determining the damage suffered by those passengers? ____________ 1 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).