CELEX: 62018CN0369
Language: en
Date: 2018-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-369/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 5 June 2018 — Giovanni Martina v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

201807270202024302018/C 285/453692018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180605282921Case C-369/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 5 June 2018 — Giovanni Martina v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd
 ---documentbreak--- C2852018EN2810120180605EN0045281292Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 5 June 2018 — Giovanni Martina v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd
   (Case C-369/18)2018/C 285/45Language of the case: French
      Referring court
   
   Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Giovanni Martina
   
      Defendant: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd
   
      Questions referred
   
   The following questions concerning the interpretation of Article 5(3) 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, (
         1
      ) are referred:
   
            —
         
         
            Does the circumstance at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, fall to be classified under the notion of an ‘event’ within the meaning of paragraph 22 of the judgment of 22 December 2008, Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771), or under that of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of recital 14 of that regulation, as interpreted by the judgment of 31 January 2013, McDonagh (C-12/11, EU:C:2013:43), or do those two concepts merge?
         
      
            —
         
         
            Must Article 5(3) 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, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers in the case where a flight operated by that carrier is subjected to a significant delay?
         
      
            —
         
         
            If an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, the spillage of petrol on a runway which caused that runway to be closed, must be found to be an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must it be inferred from this that, for the air carrier, this is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken?
         
      (
         1
      )	OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.