CELEX: 62017CN0292
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-292/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH

31.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 249/21
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 22 May 2017 — EUflight.de GmbH v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-292/17)
   (2017/C 249/32)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: EUflight.de GmbH
   
      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   
      Question referred
   
   Is a flight cancellation still caused by an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 (1) when the circumstances (here, ‘wildcat strike’ or ‘wave of illness’) only indirectly affect the flight in question in that they prompted the air carrier to reschedule its entire flight plan and the new schedule includes the scheduled cancellation of that specific flight? Can an air carrier avoid liability under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 where the flight in question, had it not been rescheduled, could have been operated because the crew planned for that flight would have been available if it had not been assigned to other flights through rescheduling?
   
      (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).