CELEX: 62010CN0294
Language: en
Date: 2010-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-294/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 15 June 2010 — Andrejs Eglītis and Edvards Ratnieks v Ekonomikas Ministrija

14.8.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 221/29
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 15 June 2010 — Andrejs Eglītis and Edvards Ratnieks v Ekonomikas Ministrija
   (Case C-294/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/46
   Language of the case: Latvian
   
      Referring court
   
   Augstākās tiesas Senāts
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Andrejs Eglītis, Edvards Ratnieks
   
      Defendant: Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas Ministrija
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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, to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is required, in order to be found to have taken all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances, to organise its resources in good time so that it is possible to operate a programmed flight once the unforeseen extraordinary circumstances have ceased to obtain, that is to say, during a certain period following the scheduled departure time?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does Article 6(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 apply for the purpose of determining the minimum ‘reserve time’ which the air carrier, when organising its resources at the appropriate time, must provide for as a possible foreseeable delay in the event that extraordinary circumstances arise?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.