CELEX: 62019CA0826
Language: en
Date: 2021-04-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-826/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — WZ v Austrian Airlines AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 6 — Delayed flight — Article 8(3) — Diversion of a flight to an airport serving the same town, city or region — Concept of ‘cancellation’ — Extraordinary circumstances — Compensation to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights in arrival — Obligation to bear the cost of transferring passengers from the actual airport of arrival to the airport for which the booking was made)

14.6.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 228/5
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — WZ v Austrian Airlines AG
      (Case C-826/19) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 6 - Delayed flight - Article 8(3) - Diversion of a flight to an airport serving the same town, city or region - Concept of ‘cancellation’ - Extraordinary circumstances - Compensation to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights in arrival - Obligation to bear the cost of transferring passengers from the actual airport of arrival to the airport for which the booking was made)
      (2021/C 228/07)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Landesgericht Korneuburg
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: WZ
      
         Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/04 of the European Parliament and 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, where a flight is diverted to an airport serving the same town as the airport for which the booking was made, the bearing of the cost of transferring the passenger between the two airports, provided for in that provision, is not subject to the condition that the first airport be situated in the territory of the same town, of the same city or of the region as the second airport.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Article 5(1)(c), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a diverted flight landing at an airport which is not that for which the booking was made but which serves the same town, city or region is not capable of conferring on the passenger a right to compensation for cancellation of a flight. However, a passenger of a flight diverted to an alternative airport serving the same town, city or region as the airport for which the booking was made is entitled, as a rule, to compensation under that regulation when the passenger reaches his or her final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally planned by the operating air carrier.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Articles 5 and 7 and Article 8(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining the extent of the delay in arrival incurred by a passenger on a diverted flight which landed at an airport which is not that for which the booking was made but which serves the same town, city or region, it is necessary to take as a reference the time at which the passenger actually reaches, at the end of the transfer, either the airport for which the booking was made or, as the case may be, another close-by destination agreed with the operating air carrier.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be released from its obligation to pay compensation to passengers in the event of long delay of flights in arrival, an operating air carrier may rely on an extraordinary circumstance which affected not that delayed flight but a previous flight operated by that carrier using the same aircraft at aircraft turnaround three flights back in the rotation sequence of that aircraft, provided that there is a direct causal link between the occurrence of that circumstance and the long delay of a subsequent flight in arrival, which is for the national court to determine, taking into account, inter alia, the way in which the aircraft at issue is operated by the operating air carrier concerned.
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Article 8(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a diverted flight lands at an airport which is not that for which the booking was made but which serves the same town, city or region, the operating air carrier must on its own initiative offer the passenger to bear the cost of transfer either to the destination airport for which the booking was made or, as the case may be, to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger.
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  Article 8(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that breach by the operating air carrier of its obligation to bear the cost of transferring the passenger from the airport of arrival either to the airport for which the booking was made or to another destination agreed with the passenger does not confer on the latter a right to flat-rate compensation under Article 7(1) of that regulation. By contrast, that breach gives rise, for the benefit of the passenger, to a right to reimbursement of the amounts incurred by him or her and which, in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, prove necessary, appropriate and reasonable to remedy the shortcomings of the air carrier.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.