Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 July 2019.
Radu Lucian Rusu and Oana Maria Rusu v SC Blue Air - Airline Management Solutions SRL.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Air transport — Denied boarding — Concepts of ‘compensation’ and ‘further compensation’ — Type of damage for which compensation is available — Material or non-material damage — Deduction — Further compensation — Assistance — Information provided to passengers.
Case C-354/18. (2019)
Language: English

In those circumstances, the Tribunalul Bacău (Regional Court, Bacău, Romania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)
Is the amount of EUR 400 provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 intended to compensate primarily for the material damage, with the non-material damage being assessed pursuant to Article 12 thereof, or does Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 primarily cover the non-material damage, with the material damage being subject to Article 12 thereof?
(2)
Does an amount corresponding to a loss of salary which exceeds the amount of EUR 400 established by Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation fall within the concept of “further compensation” referred to in Article 12 thereof?
(3)
Under the second sentence of Article 12(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, “the compensation granted under this Regulation may be deducted from such compensation”. Must that provision be interpreted as leaving to the national court’s discretion the decision to deduct from the further compensation the amount awarded under Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation, or is that deduction compulsory?
(4)
In the event that the deduction of that amount is not compulsory, what are the elements on the basis of which the national court is to decide whether to deduct from the further compensation the amount referred to in Article 7(1)(b)?
(5)
Must the damage caused as a result of the non-payment of salary, owing to the fact that an employee had been unable to be present at work by reason of his delayed arrival at his destination as a result of re-routing, be analysed from the perspective of fulfilment of the obligations provided for in Article 8 of Regulation No 261/2004, or Article 12 of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 4 thereof?
(6)
Does an airline operator’s fulfilment of the obligation to provide assistance under Articles 4(3) and 8 of Regulation No 261/2004 mean presenting a passenger with comprehensive information regarding all that passenger’s re-routing options as provided for in Article 8(1)(a) to (c) of that regulation?
(7).
On whom does the burden of proving that the re-routing was done at the earliest opportunity under Article 8 of Regulation No 261/2004 rest?
(8)
Does Regulation No 261/2004 impose an obligation on passengers to carry out searches to identify other routes to their destination and to ask a company to find seats on those routes, or is the airline obliged to look, of its own motion, for the most advantageous option whereby those passengers may be transported to their destination?
(9).
Is the fact that passengers accepted an airline’s proposal offering them a flight on 11 September 2016, even though they could assume that they would not be paid for the period during which they were absent from work, relevant for determining the damage suffered by those passengers?’

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The Court of Justice"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    

   "Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania)"->"Questions for a preliminary ruling";
   "Questions for a preliminary ruling"->"The Court of Justice";
   "Judecătoria Bacău (Court of First Instance, Bacău, Romania)"->"Stay the proceedings"[dir=none];

}