EN
28.2.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 95/17
Second ground of appeal alleging that the General Court fails to address appropriately the pleas in law of the appellant which do not concern the alleged lack of competence of the ECB.
(1)
Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 7 December 2021 — PJ v Eurowings GmbH (Case C-751/21) (2022/C 95/21) Language of the case: German Referring court Landesgericht Salzburg
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: PJ Defendant: Eurowings GmbH
Questions referred 1.
Is there a case of ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 4 and Article 2(j) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) (‘Air Passenger Rights Regulation’) even in the case where passengers are denied boarding on the flight in question not at the boarding gate (departure gate) but earlier, at the check-in counter, and for that reason do not even get as far as the boarding gate (departure gate)? 2.
In order to meet the conditions under Article 3(2)(a) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, is it sufficient that, in the case of a departure time of 6:20 a.m., a boarding time of 5:50 a.m. and ‘gate closure’ at 6:05 a.m. (according to the boarding pass in each case), the passenger, after arriving at the airport by taxi at 5:14 a.m., presents himself at the defendant’s check-in desk immediately afterwards (that is to say, at approximately 5:16 a.m.) — particularly in view of the fact that, at 3:14 a.m. on the day of departure, the defendant informed the passenger that the flight was heavily booked and that hand luggage had to be checked in at the check-in counter, and also in consideration of the fact that the defendant had informed the passenger that the check-in counter at Hamburg Airport opens 2 hours before departure and closes 40 minutes before departure? 3.
Is there a case of ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 4 and Article 2(j) of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation in the case where, at 5:16 a.m., the applicant and his family are immediately referred from the defendant’s check-in counter to the very busy luggage check-in machines at Hamburg Airport in order to check in their luggage, which are not functioning properly despite assistance from employees of the defendant or the airport, after which the passengers are sent to further luggage check-in machines, where the passengers are once again unable to check in their luggage, with the result that it is not until 5:40 a.m. that one of the machines is operational and recognises the luggage, but then, at 5:41 a.m., refuses to check it in and refers the applicant back to the defendant’s check-in counter, where he is then informed that he has now missed the flight? 4.
Having regard to the difficulties encountered with the automated luggage check-in, does simply following the instructions of the employees and the machines, thereby overlooking the diminishing amount of time remaining until the check-in process ends and the departure gate closes, constitute contributory negligence on the part of the applicant and his fellow passengers?
Can any blame be attributed to the applicant and his fellow passengers for not having considered, in good time, in view of the difficulties that they encountered when checking in their luggage, the possibility of having their luggage forwarded?
Would it have been reasonable to expect the group of passengers to separate, leaving one person, for example the applicant, with the luggage, in order to enable the remaining persons to reach the departure gate, in particular in view of the fact that the mobility of the applicant’s daughter and mother-in-law was restricted, due to the need to use crutches following a knee operation in the case of his daughter and due to age and arthrosis in the case of his mother-in-law?