Case C-354/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bacău — Romania) — Radu Lucian Rusu and Oana Maria Rusu v SC Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Air transport — Denied boarding — Definition of ‘compensation’ and ‘further compensation’ — Type of damage for which compensation is available — Material or non-material damage — Deduction — Further compensation — Assistance — Information provided to passengers)
Date: 2019-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, damage, indemnification, traveller








C_2019319EN.01001601.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/16






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bacău — Romania) — Radu Lucian Rusu and Oana Maria Rusu v SC Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions Srl
(Case C-354/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Air transport - Denied boarding - Definition of ‘compensation’ and ‘further compensation’ - Type of damage for which compensation is available - Material or non-material damage - Deduction - Further compensation - Assistance - Information provided to passengers)
(2019/C 319/16)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Radu Lucian Rusu and Oana Maria Rusu

Defendant: SC Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions Srl

Operative part of the judgment







1.


In the first place, Article 7(1)(b) 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 the sum referred to in that provision is not intended to compensate for damage such as loss of salary, in the second place, that damage may be the subject of the further compensation provided for in Article 12(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, and in the third place, it is for the referring court to determine and assess the various constituent elements of that damage and the extent of the compensation for that damage on the relevant legal basis.










2.


Regulation No 261/2004, in particular the second sentence of Article 12(1) thereof, must be interpreted as allowing the competent national court to deduct the compensation awarded under that regulation from the further compensation, but does not oblige that court to do so, since that regulation does not impose conditions upon the competent national court on the basis of which it could carry out that deduction.










3.


Article 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in conjunction with Article 8(1) of that regulation, must be interpreted as requiring the operating air carrier to provide the passengers concerned with comprehensive information regarding all the options set out in the latter provision; the passengers in question have no obligation to make an active contribution to gathering the necessary information.










4.


Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of that provision, the burden of proving that the re-routing was carried out at the earliest opportunity rests with the operating air carrier.






(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.