Case C-294/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Andrejs Eglītis, Edvards Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation of passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation in the event of extraordinary circumstances — Implementation, by the air carrier, of all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances — Organisation of resources in good time to be able to ensure the operation of the flight after such circumstances have ended)
Date: 2011-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, air transport, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, interpretation of the law








C_2011194EN.01000702.xml










2.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/7





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Andrejs Eglītis, Edvards Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija
(Case C-294/10) (1)

(Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation of passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation in the event of extraordinary circumstances - Implementation, by the air carrier, of all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances - Organisation of resources in good time to be able to ensure the operation of the flight after such circumstances have ended)
2011/C 194/09
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās Tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Andrejs Eglītis, Edvards Ratnieks

Defendant: Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Articles 5(3) and 6(1) of 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) — Cancellation of a flight caused initially by air space closure because of problems with radar and aviation systems and then by expiry of the crew’s maximum permitted working time — Taking, by the air carrier, of all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier, since it is obliged to implement all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances, must reasonably, at the stage of organising the flight, take account of the risk of delay connected to the possible occurrence of such circumstances. It must, consequently, provide for a certain reserve time to allow it, if possible, to operate the flight in its entirety once the extraordinary circumstances have come to an end. However, that provision cannot be interpreted as requiring, as a ‘reasonable measure’, provision to be made, generally and without distinction, for a minimum reserve time applicable in the same way to all air carriers in all situations when extraordinary circumstances arise. The assessment of the ability of the air carrier to operate the programmed flight in its entirety in the new conditions resulting from the occurrence of those circumstances must be carried out in such a way as to ensure that the length of the required reserve time does not result in the air carrier being led to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time. Article 6(1) of that regulation is not applicable in the context of such an assessment.


(1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.