Case C-315/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu — Czech Republic) — Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Collision between an aircraft and a bird — Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Notion of ‘reasonable measures’ to avoid extraordinary circumstances or the consequences thereof)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air safety, carrier, civil aviation, consumer protection, indemnification, transport accident, traveller








C_2017213EN.01000702.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/7





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu — Czech Republic) — Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s.
(Case C-315/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Collision between an aircraft and a bird - Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Notion of ‘reasonable measures’ to avoid extraordinary circumstances or the consequences thereof))
(2017/C 213/06)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška

Defendant: Travel Service a.s.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


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, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a collision between an aircraft and a bird is classified under the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.










2.


Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that cancellation or delay of a flight is not due to extraordinary circumstances when that cancellation or delay is the result of the use by the air carrier of an expert of its choice to carry out fresh safety checks necessitated by a collision with a bird after those checks have already been carried out by an expert authorised under the applicable rules.










3.


Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘reasonable measures’ which an air carrier must take in order to reduce or even prevent the risks of collision with a bird and thus be released from its obligation to compensate passengers under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 include control measures preventing the presence of such birds provided that, in particular at the technical and administrative levels, such measures can actually be taken by that air carrier, that those measures do not require it to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking and that that carrier has shown that those measures were actually taken as regards the flight affected by the collision with a bird, it being for the referring court to satisfy itself that those conditions have been met.










4.


Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a delay to a flight equal to or in excess of three hours in arrival caused not only by extraordinary circumstances, which could not have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation and which were subject to all reasonable measures by the air carrier to avoid the consequences thereof, but also in other circumstances not in that category, the delay caused by the first event must be deducted from the total length of the delay in arrival of the flight concerned in order to assess whether compensation for the delay in arrival of that flight must be paid as provided for in Article 7 of that regulation.






(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.