Case C-315/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6 (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 June 2015 — Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s.
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air safety, carrier, civil aviation, consumer protection, indemnification, interpretation of the law, traveller








C_2015414EN.01001201.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6 (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 June 2015 — Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s.
(Case C-315/15)
(2015/C 414/15)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška

Defendant: Travel Service a.s.

Questions referred







1)


Is a collision between an aircraft and a bird an event within the meaning of paragraph 22 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Wallentin-Hermann, Case C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771 (‘Wallentin-Hermann’), or does it constitute extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of recital 14 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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 (2) (‘the Regulation’), or is it impossible to classify it under either of those concepts?










2)


If the collision between an aircraft and a bird constitutes extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of recital 14 in the preamble to the Regulation, may preventative control systems established in particular around airports (such as sonic bird deterrents, cooperation with ornithologists, the elimination of spaces where birds typically gather or fly, using light as a deterrent and so on) be considered to be reasonable measures to be taken by the air carrier to avoid such a collision? What in this case constitutes the event within the meaning of paragraph 22 of Wallentin-Hermann?










3)


If a collision between an aircraft and a bird is an event within the meaning of paragraph 22 of Wallentin-Hermann, may it also be considered to be an event within the meaning of recital 14 in the preamble to the Regulation and may, in such a case, the body of technical and administrative measures which an air carrier must implement following a collision between an aircraft and a bird which nevertheless did not result in damage to the aircraft be considered to constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of recital 14 in the preamble to the Regulation?










4)


If the body of technical and administrative measures taken following a collision between an aircraft and a bird which nevertheless did not result in damage to the aircraft constitutes exceptional circumstances within the meaning of recital 14 in the preamble to the Regulation, is it permissible to require, as reasonable measures, the air carrier to take into consideration, when it plans flights, the risk that it will be necessary to take such technical and administrative measures following a collision between an aircraft and a bird and to make provision for that fact in the flight schedule?










5)


How must the obligation on the air carrier to pay compensation, as provided for in Article 7 of the Regulation, be assessed where the delay is caused not only by administrative and technical measures adopted following a collision between the aircraft and a bird which did not result in damage to the aircraft, but also to a significant extent by repairing a technical problem unconnected with that collision?






(1)  OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.