Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Irish Ferries Ltd v National Transport Authority

(Case C-570/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Maritime transport - Rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway - Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 - Articles 18 and 19, Article 20(4), and Articles 24 and 25 - Cancellation of passenger services - Late delivery of a vessel to the carrier - Notice given prior to the originally scheduled date of departure - Consequences - Right to re-routing - Procedures - Payment of the additional costs - Right to compensation - Calculation - Concept of ticket price - National body responsible for the enforcement of Regulation No 1177/2010 - Competence - Concept of a complaint - Assessment of validity - Articles 16, 17, 20 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of proportionality, legal certainty and equal treatment)

(2021/C 431/14)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Irish Ferries Ltd

Defendant: National Transport Authority

Operative part of the judgment

1. Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that it applies where a carrier cancels a passenger service giving several weeks’ notice prior to the originally scheduled departure because the delivery of the vessel required to provide that service was delayed, and could not be replaced;

2. Article 18 of Regulation No 1177/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a passenger service is cancelled and there is no alternative service on the same route, the carrier is required to offer to the passenger, by virtue of the passenger’s right to re-routing under comparable conditions and at the earliest opportunity to the final destination provided for in that provision, an alternative service that follows a different itinerary from that of the cancelled service or a maritime service coupled with other modes of transport, such as rail or road transport, and is required to bear any additional costs incurred by the passenger in re-routing to the final destination;

3. Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation No 1177/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a carrier cancels a passenger service giving several weeks’ notice before the originally scheduled departure, a passenger has a right to compensation under Article 19 of that regulation where he or she decides, in accordance with Article 18 of that regulation, to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity or to postpone the journey to a later date and that passenger arrives at the originally scheduled final destination with a delay that exceeds the thresholds laid down in Article 19 of that regulation. By contrast, where a passenger decides to be reimbursed for the ticket price, he or she does not have such a right to compensation under that article;

4. Article 19 of Regulation No 1177/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘ticket price’, referred to in that article, includes the costs relating to the additional optional services chosen by the passenger, such as the booking of a cabin or a kennel, or access to premium lounges;

5. Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1177/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that the late delivery of a passenger transport vessel which led to the cancellation of all sailings to be operated by that vessel in the context of a new maritime route does not fall within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision;

6. Article 24 of Regulation No 1177/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a passenger who requests compensation under Article 19 of that regulation to submit his or her request in the form of a complaint to the carrier within two months from the date on which the service was performed or when a service should have been performed;

7. Article 25 of Regulation No 1177/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that the competence of a national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation designated by a Member State covers not only the passenger service provided from a port situated in the territory of that Member State, but also a passenger service provided from a port situated in the territory of another Member State to a port situated in the territory of the first Member State where the latter service is part of a return journey which has been entirely cancelled;

8. Examination of the tenth question has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Articles 18 and 19 of Regulation No 1177/2010.

(1) OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.