Vueling Airlines SA v Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia.
Date: 2014-09-18
26. In that regard, it should be noted that it is not for the Court, in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling, to give a ruling on the interpretation of provisions of national law or to decide whether the interpretation given by the national court of those provisions is correct (see, in particular, judgments in Corsten , C‑58/98, EU:C:2000:527, paragraph 24; Dynamic Medien , C‑244/06, EU:C:2008:85, paragraph 19; Angelidaki and Others , C‑378/07 to C‑380/07, EU:C:2009:250, paragraph 48; and Samba Diouf , C‑69/10, EU:C:2011:524, paragraph 59).
30. In that respect, it must be observed that according to the Court’s settled case-law, the need for a uniform interpretation of the provisions of EU law makes it impossible for the text of a provision to be considered in isolation, but requires, on the contrary, that it be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (see, inter alia, judgments in Stauder , 29/69, EU:C:1969:57, paragraph 3; EMU Tabac and Others , C‑296/95, EU:C:1998:152, paragraph 36; and Profisa , C‑63/06, EU:C:2007:233, paragraph 13).
31. Where there is divergence between the various language versions of a European Union legal text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see, in particular, judgments in Bouchereau , 30/77, EU:C:1977:172, paragraph 14; Italy v Commission , C‑482/98, EU:C:2000:672, paragraph 49; and Eleftheri tileorasi and Giannikos , C‑52/10, EU:C:2011:374, paragraph 24).
32. In those circumstances, it must held that, in Chapter IV of Regulation No 1008/2008, which contains provisions on pricing, Article 22(1) relating to pricing freedom is complemented by Article 23(1), which seeks to ensure, in particular, that there is information and transparency with regard to prices for air services from an airport located in a Member State and which thereby contributes to safeguarding protection of customers having recourse to those services (see, to that effect, judgment in ebookers.com Deutschland , C‑112/11, EU:C:2012:487, paragraph 13). In that respect, Article 23(1) lays down information and transparency obligations as regards, in particular, the conditions applicable to air fares, the final price to be paid, the air fare and the unavoidable and foreseeable items that are added to the fare, and the optional price supplements relating to services that supplement the air service itself.
33. Notwithstanding the fact that Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 does not expressly refer to the prices to be paid for carrying baggage, it must be held that the obligations laid down in that provision also cover such prices, having regard, in particular, to the objective that it should be possible effectively to compare prices for air services, set out at recital 16 in the preamble to the regulation.
36. As regards the manner in which those prices must be set, Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 requires, in particular, on the one hand, that the unavoidable and foreseeable items included in the price of the air service are always specified as elements of the final price to be paid, and, on the other hand, that the price supplements, which relate to services that are neither compulsory nor necessary for the air service itself, are communicated in a clear, transparent and unambiguous way at the start of any booking process, and that their acceptance by the customer must be on an opt-in basis (see, to that effect, ebookers.com Deutschland , EU:C:2012:487, paragraph 14).
44. In this respect, it should be observed that EU law does not preclude, without prejudice to the application, in particular, of rules enacted in the field of consumer protection (see, to that effect, judgment in ebookers.com Deutschland , EU:C:2012:487, paragraph 17), Member States from regulating aspects of the contract of carriage by air, in order, in particular, to protect consumers against unfair practices. Nevertheless, such a national law cannot be contrary to the pricing provisions of Regulation No 1008/2008.
47. Finally, when applying domestic law the national court must, as far as is at all possible, interpret it in a way which accords with the requirements of EU law (judgments in Engelbrecht , C‑262/97, EU:C:2000:492, paragraph 39; ČEZ, C‑115/08, EU:C:2009:660, paragraph 138; and Wall , C‑91/08, EU:C:2010:182, paragraph 70).
48. If the result required under EU law cannot be achieved by adopting a consistent interpretation of the domestic law, the national court is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation (see, to that effect, judgments in Simmenthal , 106/77, EU:C:1978:49, paragraph 24; Berlusconi and Others , C‑387/02, C‑391/02 and C‑403/02, EU:C:2005:270, paragraph 72; Pupino , C‑105/03, EU:C:2005:386, paragraph 43; and Melki and Abdeli , C‑188/10 and C‑189/10, EU:C:2010:363, paragraph 43).