do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-252/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 June 2020 — CY v Eurowings GmbH
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, reservation, traveller








C_2020279EN.01003402.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 June 2020 — CY v Eurowings GmbH
(Case C-252/20)
(2020/C 279/46)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CY

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Can a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) also exist when a passenger misses a directly connecting flight due to a relatively minor delay in arrival, resulting in a delay in arrival at the final destination of three hours or more, where the two flights were operated by different air carriers and the booking was not made through the air carrier which operated the flight on the first segment of the journey and against which a claim has been made in the main proceedings?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
Is the air carrier which actually operated the delayed flight on the first segment of the journey the ‘operating air carrier’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 or is the air carrier which operated the punctual flight on the second segment of the journey, via which both flights were booked, the ‘operating air carrier’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004?










3.


If both air carriers are to be regarded as ‘operating air carriers’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004:
Does the passenger have a choice, that is to say, can he or she make a claim against either of the air carriers?






(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-83/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — AL v Commission (Civil service — Special advisers — Appointment to the post of representative of the European Union in an international partnership body — Appointment of another representative of the European Union — Legitimate expectations — Right to be heard — Principle of good administration and duty to have regard to the welfare of officials — Liability)
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appointment of staff, contract staff, indemnification, international cooperation, rights of the defence, servant (EU), the EU's international role








C_2020247EN.01000901.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/9






Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — AL v Commission
(Case T-83/19) (1)

(Civil service - Special advisers - Appointment to the post of representative of the European Union in an international partnership body - Appointment of another representative of the European Union - Legitimate expectations - Right to be heard - Principle of good administration and duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Liability)
(2020/C 247/14)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AL (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Vernier and I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation of 19 December 2017 and of the decision of 12 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint and, secondly, compensation of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.