CELEX: 62014CN0279
Language: en
Date: 2014-06-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-279/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2014  — Catharina Smets, Franciscus Vereijken v TUIfly GmbH

8.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 303/18
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 6 June 2014 — Catharina Smets, Franciscus Vereijken v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-279/14)
   2014/C 303/23
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Landgericht Hannover
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Catharina Smets, Franciscus Vereijken
   
      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               In the light of recital 15 in its preamble, is Regulation No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of an exceptional circumstance — which leads the air carrier, after that circumstance has occurred, to deliberately reroute flights and to first reschedule those flights which were directly affected by the exceptional circumstance — can justify a delay within the meaning of Article 5 of that regulation and release the air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004 to the passenger whose flight was operated only after the exceptional circumstance had been dealt with and all flights could be rescheduled?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In this context, is Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that the air carrier which operates flights using a rotation procedure took all reasonable measures and is accordingly released from its obligation to pay compensation, when transporting passengers whose flight has already been significantly delayed due directly to an extraordinary circumstance, as a priority with aircraft which, in principle, are used differently in the rotation?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Is recital 15 to be interpreted as meaning that only the aircraft directly affected by the strike, which is liable to affect one or more flights of that aircraft, may be affected by extraordinary circumstances, or does the circle of affected planes extend to several aircraft?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               In the context of reasonable measures within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, is the airline permitted to use aircraft that are not affected in order to minimise the consequences of the strike for passengers who are directly affected and accordingly to spread the effects of a strike among several aircraft and passengers?
            
         
      (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 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).