CELEX: 62014CA0257
Language: en
Date: 2015-09-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-257/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Corina van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Passengers’ rights in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Denied boarding and cancellation — Long flight delay — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Extraordinary circumstances)

9.11.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 371/11
            
         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Corina van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
   (Case C-257/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Passengers’ rights in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Denied boarding and cancellation - Long flight delay - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Extraordinary circumstances))
   (2015/C 371/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Rechtbank Amsterdam
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Corina van der Lans
   
      Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   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 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which occurred unexpectedly, which is not attributable to poor maintenance and which was also not detected during routine maintenance checks, does not fall within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.
   
      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.