Case C-584/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — D. Z. v Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions SRL and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Border controls, asylum and immigration — Decision No 565/2014/EU — Simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders — Third country national in possession of a temporary residence permit issued by a Member State — Article 3 — Recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas — Whether a decision can be invoked against a State — Direct effect — Recognition of a private law entity as a State emanation — Conditions — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Schengen Borders Code — Article 13 — Refusal of entry to the territory of a Member State — Obligation to state reasons — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding — Article 2(j) — Denied boarding on the basis of allegedly inadequate travel documents — Article 15 — Air carriers’ obligations to passengers — Inadmissibility of derogations laid down in the contract of carriage or other documents)
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, EU visa policy, Romania, air transport, border control, external border of the EU, foreign national, removal, residence permit








C_2020240EN.01000502.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/5






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas — Cyprus) — D. Z. v Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions SRL and Others
(Case C-584/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Border controls, asylum and immigration - Decision No 565/2014/EU - Simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders - Third country national in possession of a temporary residence permit issued by a Member State - Article 3 - Recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas - Whether a decision can be invoked against a State - Direct effect - Recognition of a private law entity as a State emanation - Conditions - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Schengen Borders Code - Article 13 - Refusal of entry to the territory of a Member State - Obligation to state reasons - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding - Article 2(j) - Denied boarding on the basis of allegedly inadequate travel documents - Article 15 - Air carriers’ obligations to passengers - Inadmissibility of derogations laid down in the contract of carriage or other documents)
(2020/C 240/07)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Eparchiako Dikastirio Larnakas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: D. Z.

Defendants: Blue Air — Airline Management Solutions SRL and Others

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Art. 3(1) of Decision No 565/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 introducing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas for transit through or intended stays on their territories not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period and repealing Decisions No 895/2006/EC and No 582/2008/EC must be interpreted as producing direct effect in the form of rights that third country nationals can assert against the Member State of destination, in particular, the right not to be required to have a visa to enter the territory of that Member State, where those nationals are in possession of a visa or residence permit included in the list of visas and residence permits recognised on the basis of that decision, which that Member State has undertaken to apply;










2.


EU law must be interpreted, where an air carrier directly or through its authorised and designated representatives at the airport of the Member State of departure denies boarding to a passenger, giving as its reason that the authorities of the Member State of destination have refused him or her entry, as precluding that air carrier from being considered as acting as an emanation of that State, such that Decision No 565/2014/EU cannot be cited against it by the passenger concerned before the courts of the Member State of departure in order to claim compensation for infringement of his or her right to enter the territory of the Member State of destination without requiring a visa issued by that Member State;










3.


EU law, in particular Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 610/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013, must be interpreted as precluding an air carrier from relying upon a decision of the authorities of the Member State of destination deny a third country national entry to the territory of that State to refuse to allow that person to board the aircraft, where he or she has not previously been notified of the decision to deny entry by means of a written decision providing reasons therefor;










4.


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, in particular, Article 2(j) of that regulation, must be interpreted, where boarding is denied by an air carrier due to supposedly inadequate travel documentation, as meaning that that denial of boarding does not, in itself, deprive the passenger of the protection provided for under that regulation. In the event of a claim on the part of that passenger, it is for the competent court to assess, based on the circumstances of the case, whether that denial of boarding was reasonably justified in the light of this provision;










5.


Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, in particular Article 15 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding a clause applicable to passengers, which is included in the standard terms that are published in advance and govern the operation of or provision of services by the air carrier, and which limits or precludes the liability of that air carrier in the event of a passenger being denied boarding by reason of supposedly inadequate travel documentation and thus depriving that passenger of his or her right to compensation.






(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.