Case C-826/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2019 — WZ v Austrian Airlines AG
Date: 2019-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2020077EN.01002201.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 13 November 2019 — WZ v Austrian Airlines AG
(Case C-826/19)
(2020/C 77/32)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WZ

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 8(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 (‘the Air Passenger Rights Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to two airports which are both located in the immediate vicinity of a city centre, but only one of them is located in the territory of the city and the other is located in a neighbouring federal Land?










2.


Are Article 5(1)(c), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that a flight lands at an alternative airport of destination in the same town, city or region, there is a right to compensation owing to cancellation of the flight?










3.


Are Article 6(1), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that a flight lands at an alternative airport in the same town, city or region, there is a right to compensation owing to a long delay?










4.


Are Articles 5, 7 and 8(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a passenger has suffered a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours within the meaning of the judgment … of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, Sturgeon and Others, (2) the delay must be calculated on the basis of the point in time at which the flight lands at the alternative airport of destination or the point in time at which the passenger is transferred to the airport of destination for which the booking was made or to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger?










5.


Is Article 5(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which operates flights as part of a flight rotation system may rely on an incident — specifically on a reduction of the arrival rate brought about by stormy weather conditions — which occurred in relation to the flight three flights back in the rotation sequence of the flight concerned?










6.


Is Article 8(3) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that a flight lands at an alternative airport of destination, the air carrier must take the initiative to offer transport to a different location, or the passenger must request the transport?










7.


Are Article 7(1), Article 8(3) and Article 9(1)(c) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the passenger has a right to compensation owing to a breach of the obligations to provide assistance and care provided for in Articles 8 and 9 thereof?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2010 C 24, p. 4.