do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-54/23, Laudamotion and Ryanair: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — WY v Laudamotion GmbH, Ryanair DAC (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(1) — Article 7(1) — Compensation for air passengers in the event of a long delay to a flight — Loss of time — Replacement flight booked by the passenger — Passenger arriving at the final destination less than three hours later than the original scheduled arrival time — No compensation)
Date: 2024-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carrier, civil aviation, indemnification, reservation, traveller








C_202401829EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1829


11.3.2024





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — WY v Laudamotion GmbH, Ryanair DAC
(Case C-54/23, (1) Laudamotion and Ryanair)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(1) - Article 7(1) - Compensation for air passengers in the event of a long delay to a flight - Loss of time - Replacement flight booked by the passenger - Passenger arriving at the final destination less than three hours later than the original scheduled arrival time - No compensation)
(C/2024/1829)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WY

Defendants: Laudamotion GmbH, Ryanair DAC

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1) and Article 7(1) 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
must be interpreted as meaning that the right to compensation, within the meaning of those provisions, cannot be enjoyed by an air passenger who, on account of a risk of a long delay in arrival at the final destination of the flight on which he or she has a confirmed reservation, or even on account of sufficient evidence of such a delay, has himself or herself booked an alternative flight and has reached the final destination with a delay of less than three hours after the originally scheduled arrival time of the first flight.


(1)  
            OJ C 173, 15.5.2023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1829/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-47/24, Cofidis Magyarországi Fióktelepe: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 25 January 2024 – CN v Cofidis Magyarországi Fióktelepe
Date: 2024-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, debt, enforcement of ruling, judicial review, unfair terms of contract








C_202402592EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2592


22.4.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 25 January 2024 – CN v Cofidis Magyarországi Fióktelepe


(Case C-47/24, Cofidis Magyarországi Fióktelepe)

(C/2024/2592)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CN

Defendant: Cofidis Magyarországi Fióktelepe

Questions referred







1.


Is it necessary, to ensure the full achievement of the objectives of Directive 93/13/EC, (1) for the court or chamber hearing the case, when issuing an order in pending enforcement proceedings and when assessing that order, to find, on the basis of the judgments in Cases C-472/11 (2) and C-397/11, (3) that the terms of the contract on which the order for enforcement is based are manifestly unfair, including in relation to the main subject matter of the contract, where it made that finding of its own motion and the debtor (consumer) has been informed and asked to state whether he or she wishes the legal consequences of the unfairness of the contractual term in question to be established and, if so, to request the party seeking enforcement to reduce his or her claim by the amount resulting from the application of the unfair contractual terms imposed on the consumer and to make a declaration to that effect to the court enforcement officer?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it also necessary, in order to achieve the objectives of the directive, to clarify whether a distinction can be drawn among enforcement proceedings according to whether enforcement is ordered by means of the issue of a certificate of enforcement, pursuant to Article 15(1) of Law LIII of 1994, or by the affixing of the enforcement clause referred to in Article 23/C?










3.


In view of the large number of such enforcement proceedings pending in Hungary, is legislative intervention necessary in order to prevent consumers’ interests from being adversely affected and to ensure that they are compensated as quickly as possible for the damage caused by unfair contractual terms, so that consumers, in order to be individually exempted from the consequences of such enforcement proceedings, are not faced with the prospect of judicial review of the act of enforcement and thus of an assessment of whether the contractual term is unfair?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  Judgment of 21 February 2013, Banif Plus Bank (C-472/11, EU:C:2013:88).

(3)  Judgment of 30 May 2013, Jőrös (C-397/11, EU:C:2013:340).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2592/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-277/22, Global NRG: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Global NRG Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Zrt. v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 41(17) — Natural gas transmission system — National regulatory authority — Fixing of system usage charges and connection fees — Fixing of remuneration for any services provided by the system operator — Concept of ‘a party affected by a decision of a regulatory authority’ — Appeal against that decision — Right to an effective remedy — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2024-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: energy transport, gas pipeline, natural gas, provision of services, right to an effective remedy, right to justice








C_202401821EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1821


11.3.2024





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 January 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Global NRG Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Zrt. v Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal
(Case C-277/22, (1) Global NRG)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 41(17) - Natural gas transmission system - National regulatory authority - Fixing of system usage charges and connection fees - Fixing of remuneration for any services provided by the system operator - Concept of ‘a party affected by a decision of a regulatory authority’ - Appeal against that decision - Right to an effective remedy - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(C/2024/1821)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Global NRG Kereskedelmi és Tanácsadó Zrt.

Defendant: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal

Intervening party: FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 41(17) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, read in the light of the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which only the operator of the natural gas transmission system is classified as a ‘party affected’ by a decision of the national regulatory authority fixing the connection fees and usage charges for that system in addition to the remuneration for any services provided by that operator and, consequently, only that operator has standing to bring an effective appeal against that decision.


(1)  
            OJ C 257, 4.7.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1821/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)