Case C-37/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2021 — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd
Date: 2021-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air traffic control, airline, carriage of passengers, civil aviation, indemnification








C_2021163EN.01001101.xml










3.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2021 — flightright GmbH v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd
(Case C-37/21)
(2021/C 163/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

Questions referred







1.


Does delayed take-off clearance by air traffic management constitute per se an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of [Regulation (EC) No 261/2004], (1) or must that question be answered in the negative since delays in take-off clearance by air traffic management, referred to as ‘slot delays’, do not represent an occurrence that is ‘out of the ordinary’ in air transport, but rather an occurrence that is part of the usual and expected processes and basic conditions of international air transport, because it is inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of air carriers?










2.


Is it to be assumed that it is already known to the courts that ‘slot delays’ by air traffic management in international air transport are not circumstances that are out of the ordinary within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice, but rather ordinary, usual and expected concomitants of air transport, or is it necessary in the dispute to take evidence in that regard by obtaining expert reports, whereby such evidence would be provided only if slot delays occur extremely rarely in international air transport and not on a regular basis?










3.


Are slot delays by air traffic management to be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they themselves are due to circumstances that can be characterised as extraordinary within the meaning of Article 5(3), such as an accident or a terrorist threat, but not to weather conditions which are customary for the time and place of the event and which temporarily affect air traffic?










4.


Does adverse weather as a reason for a slot delay constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if, in itself, the adverse weather constitutes an extraordinary circumstance and if, in itself, the adverse weather at the place in question and at the time in question is ‘out of the ordinary’, and, in itself, is not typical of the ‘usual weather conditions to be expected’ at the place in question and at the time in question, but ‘goes beyond them’?










5.


Are adverse weather conditions that are not out of the ordinary at a specific place at a specific time and do not go beyond the usual weather conditions to be expected at a specific place at a specific time events inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of air carriers and in the normal basic conditions of air transport within the meaning of the Court of Justice’s interpretation of Article 5(3) of [Regulation No 261/2004]?






(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).