Case C-74/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Juiz 18 — Portugal) — LE v Transport Aéreos Portugueses SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Article 7(1) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Exemption — Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Unruly passengers — Possibility of relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in respect of a flight not affected by that circumstance — Concept of ‘reasonable measures’)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2020271EN.01001101.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/11






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Juiz 18 — Portugal) — LE v Transport Aéreos Portugueses SA
(Case C-74/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Article 7(1) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Unruly passengers - Possibility of relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in respect of a flight not affected by that circumstance - Concept of ‘reasonable measures’)
(2020/C 271/15)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa — Juízo Local Cível de Lisboa — Juiz 18

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: LE

Defendant: Transport Aéreos Portugueses SA

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 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that the unruly behaviour of a passenger which has justified the pilot in command of the aircraft in diverting the flight concerned to an airport other than the airport of arrival in order to disembark that passenger and his baggage falls within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision, unless the operating air carrier contributed to the occurrence of that behaviour or failed to take appropriate measures in view of the warning signs of such behaviour, which it is for the national court to verify;










2.


Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be exempted from its obligation to compensate passengers in the event of a long delay or cancellation of a flight, an operating air carrier may rely on an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which affected a previous flight which it operated using the same aircraft, provided that there is a direct causal link between the occurrence of that circumstance and the delay or cancellation of the subsequent flight, which is for the national court to determine, having regard in particular to the conditions of operation of the aircraft in question by the operating air carrier concerned;










3.


Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that for an air carrier to re-route a passenger, on the ground that the aircraft carrying that passenger was affected by an extraordinary circumstance, by means of a flight operated by that carrier and resulting in that passenger arriving on the day following the day originally scheduled, does not constitute a ‘reasonable measure’ releasing that carrier from its obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of that regulation, unless there was no other possibility of direct or indirect re-routing by a flight operated by itself or any other air carrier and arriving at a time which was not as late as the next flight of the air carrier concerned or unless the implementation of such re-routing constituted an intolerable sacrifice for that air carrier in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time, which is a matter for the national court to assess.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.