natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
12 The return flight from Toronto to Frankfurt was due to depart at 16.20 on 9 July 2005. Following check-in, passengers on that flight were informed that the flight was cancelled, as was indicated on the airport departures board. Their luggage was returned to them and they were then driven to a hotel where they spent the night. The following day, the passengers were checked in at another airline’s counter for a flight with the same number as that on their booking. Condor did not schedule another flight with the same number for the day concerned. The passengers were given different seats from those they had been allocated on the previous day. The booking was not converted into a booking for a flight scheduled by another airline. The flight concerned arrived in Frankfurt at around 07.00 on 11 July 2005, some 25 hours after its scheduled arrival time.
12 Povratni let iz Toronta za Frankfurt bio je previđen za 9. srpnja 2005. u 16.20. Nakon prijave, putnici za taj let bili su obaviješteni da je let otkazan, kako je bilo navedeno na ploči na kojoj se u zračnoj luci prikazuju odlazni letovi. Vraćena im je prtljaga, a zatim su ih odvezli do hotela u kojem su prenoćili. Sljedećeg dana, putnici su se prijavili na šalteru drugog zračnog prijevoznika za let s istim brojem kao onaj na njihovoj rezervaciji. Condor za dotični dan nije predvidio drugi let s istim brojem. Putnici su dobili sjedala različita od onih koja su im bila dodijeljena prethodnog dana. Rezervacija nije bila promijenjena u rezervaciju za let drugog zračnog prijevoznika. Dotični let stigao je u Frankfurt 11. srpnja 2005. oko 07.00, što je približno 25 sati nakon predviđenog vremena dolaska.
13 The Sturgeons took the view that, in light of all the abovementioned circumstances, in particular the delay of more than 25 hours, the flight had been not delayed but cancelled.
13 Obitelj Sturgeon smatrala je da s obzirom na sve gore navedene okolnosti, posebno s obzirom na zakašnjenje dulje od 25 sati, let nije kasnio nego je bio otkazan.
14 The Sturgeons brought an action against Condor before the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Local Court, Rüsselsheim) (Germany), claiming compensation of EUR 600 per person plus damages, since, in their view, the damage sustained was the result not of a flight delay but of a cancellation.
14 Obitelj Sturgeon podnijela je tužbu protiv društva Condor pred Amtsgericht Rüsselsheimom (mjesni sud, Rüsselsheim) (Njemačka) zahtijevajući odštetu od 600 EUR po osobi i naknadu štete, jer prema njihovom mišljenju pretrpljena šteta nije bila posljedica kašnjenja, nego posljedica otkazivanja leta.
15 Condor contended that the action as framed should be dismissed on the ground that the flight in question was delayed and not cancelled. Prior to the proceedings before the national court, Condor claimed that the flight had been delayed as the result of a hurricane in the Caribbean but during the proceedings it attributed the delay to technical faults on the plane and illness among the crew.
15 Condor je tvrdio da tužbu kako je sastavljena treba odbiti, jer se radilo o kašnjenju dotičnog leta, a ne o njegovom otkazivanju. Prije postupka pred nacionalnim sudom, Condor je tvrdio da je do kašnjenja leta došlo radi uragana u području Kariba, ali tijekom postupka kašnjenje je pripisao tehničkim greškama na zrakoplovu i bolesti članova posade.
16 The Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim concluded that the flight had been delayed not cancelled and, consequently, dismissed the Sturgeons’ claim for compensation. The Sturgeons appealed to the Landgericht Darmstadt (Regional Court, Darmstadt) which upheld the decision of the lower court.
16 Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim je zaključio da je let kasnio, a ne da je bio otkazan pa je stoga odbio odštetni zahtjev obitelji Sturgeon. Obitelj Sturgeon je podnijela žalbu Landgericht Darmstadtu (regionalni sud, Darmstadt) koji je potvrdio odluku nižeg suda.
17 The Sturgeons then appealed on a point of law (‘Revision’) to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice).
17 Obitelj Sturgeon je tada podnijela tužbu za „reviziju” Bundesgerichtshofu.
18 Taking the view that the outcome of the appeal depended on the interpretation of Articles 2(l) and 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
18 Smatrajući da ishod tužbe ovisi o tumačenju članka 2. točke (l) i članka 5. stavka 1. točke (c) Uredbe br. 261/2004, Bundesgerichtshof je odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu postaviti sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘1. Is it decisive for the interpretation of the term “cancellation” whether the original flight planning is abandoned, with the result that a delay, regardless of how long, does not constitute a cancellation if the air carrier does not actually abandon the planning for the original flight?
„1. Je li za tumačenje pojma „otkazivanje” odlučujuće to je li se od prvotno planiranog leta odustalo, što bi značilo da kašnjenje, bez obzira na trajanje, ne predstavlja otkazivanje ako zračni prijevoznik uistinu ne odustane od prvotno planiranog leta?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: in what circumstances is a delay of the planned flight no longer to be regarded as a delay but as a cancellation? Is the answer to this question dependent on the length of the delay?’
2. U slučaju negativnog odgovora na prvo pitanje: u kojim se okolnostima kašnjenje planiranog leta više ne smatra kašnjenjem nego otkazivanjem? Ovisi li odgovor na ovo pitanje o trajanju kašnjenja?”
Case C-432/07
Predmet C-432/07
19 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz booked return tickets with Air France from Vienna (Austria) to Mexico City (Mexico) via Paris (France).
19 S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz rezervirali su kod društva Air France povratne karte za let od Beča (Austrija) do Mexico D. F.-a (Meksiko) preko Pariza (Francuska).
20 The Mexico City-Paris flight which Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz were due to take was scheduled to depart at 21.30 on 7 March 2005. When they came to check in, they were immediately informed, without the check-in taking place, that their flight was cancelled. The cancellation resulted from a change in the flight planning between Mexico City and Paris, which arose because of a technical breakdown on the aircraft due to fly from Paris to Mexico City and on account of the need to observe the rest period prescribed by law for the crew.
20 Let Mexico D. F. – Pariz kojim su S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz trebali putovati, bio je planiran redom letenja za 7. ožujka 2005. u 21.30. Kada su se došli prijaviti za let, bili su odmah, bez obavljanja prijave, obaviješteni da je njihov let otkazan. Do otkazivanja leta došlo je zbog promjene planiranog leta između Mexico D. F.-a i Pariza zbog tehničkog kvara na zrakoplovu koji je trebao letjeti iz Pariza u Mexico D. F. i radi potrebe poštovanja zakonom propisanog vremena odmora za posadu.
21 In order to get back earlier, Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz accepted Air France’s offer of seats on a flight operated by Continental Airlines, which was scheduled to leave the following day, 8 March 2005, at 12.20. Their tickets were first cancelled and then new tickets were issued to them at the Continental Airlines counter.
21 Kako bi se vratili ranije, S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz prihvatili su ponudu društva Air France za sjedala na letu zračnog prijevoznika Continental Airlines, čiji je polazak bio predviđen sljedećeg dana, 8. ožujka 2005. u 12.20. Njihove su karte prvo bile poništene, a zatim su im izdane nove karte na šalteru zračnog prijevoznika Continental Airlines.
22 The other passengers on the Mexico City-Paris flight, who did not take the Continental Airlines flight, left Mexico City, with a number of additional passengers, on 8 March 2005 at 19.35. That flight, whose original number was followed by the letter ‘A’, was operated in addition to the regular flight scheduled by Air France on the same day.
22 Ostali putnici na letu Mexico D. F. – Pariz, koji nisu iskoristili mogućnost leta zračnim prijevoznikom Continental Airlines, napustili su Mexico D. F., zajedno s određenim brojem dodatnih putnika, 8. ožujka 2005. u 19.35. Taj let, čijem je prvotnom broju dodano slovo „A“, bio je dodatni let uz redovito planirani let društva Air France tog istog dana.
23 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz arrived in Vienna almost 22 hours after the scheduled arrival time.
23 S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz stigli su u Beč gotovo 22 sata nakon predviđenog vremena dolaska.
24 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz brought an action against Air France before the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (District Commercial Court, Vienna) (Austria), claiming EUR 600 compensation per person for cancellation of their flight, on the basis of Articles 5 and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004. That court dismissed their claim on the ground that, despite the evident flight delay, Regulation No 261/2004 did not support the conclusion that there was a flight cancellation. Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz appealed against that decision to the Handelsgericht Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna).
24 S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz podnijeli su tužbu protiv društva Air France pred Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (Austrija) zahtijevajući, na temelju članka 5. i članka 7. stavka 1. točke (c) Uredbe br. 261/2004, odštetu od 600 EUR po osobi radi otkazivanja njihovog leta. Navedeni sud je odbio njihov zahtjev uz obrazloženje da se unatoč nespornom kašnjenju leta, na temelju Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne može zaključiti da se radilo o otkazivanju leta. S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz podnijeli su žalbu protiv te odluke pred Handelsgericht Wien.
25 In those circumstances, the Handelsgericht Wien decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
25 U tim je okolnostima Handelsgericht Wien odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu postaviti sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘1. Must Article 5, read in conjunction with Articles 2(l) and 6, of Regulation … No 261/2004 …, be interpreted as meaning that a 22-hour delay in the time of departure constitutes a “delay” within the meaning of Article 6?
„1. Treba li članak 5. u vezi s člankom 2. točkom (l) i člankom 6. Uredbe […] br. 261/2004 […] tumačiti tako da 22-satno kašnjenje u odlasku predstavlja ,kašnjenje’ u smislu članka 6.?
2. Must Article 2(l) of Regulation … No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that instances in which passengers are transported significantly later (22 hours later) on a flight operating under a longer flight number (original flight number supplemented by an “A”) and carrying only an – albeit large – proportion of the passengers booked on the initial flight, but also additional passengers not booked on the initial flight, constitute “cancellations” rather than “delays”?
2. Treba li članak 2. točku (l) Uredbe […] br. 261/2004 tumačiti tako da slučajevi u kojima se putnici prevezu znatno kasnije (22 sata kasnije) letom koji se izvodi pod duljim imenom leta (prvotni broj leta dopunjen je slovom ,A’ ) i kojim se prevozi samo dio – iako veliki dio – putnika koji su imali rezervaciju za prvotni let, ali također i dodatni putnici koji nisu imali rezervaciju za prvotni let, predstavljaju ,otkazivanja’ a ne ,kašnjenja’?
If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:
U slučaju potvrdnog odgovora na drugo pitanje:
3. Must Article 5(3) of Regulation … No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that technical problems with a plane and the resulting changes to the flight schedule represent extraordinary circumstances (which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken)?’
3. Treba li članak 5. stavak 3. Uredbe […] br. 261/2004 tumačiti tako da tehnički problemi sa zrakoplovom i posljedične promjene plana letenja predstavljaju izvanredne okolnosti (koje se ne bi mogle izbjeći čak i da su bile poduzete sve razumne mjere)?”
26 By order of the President of the Court of 19 October 2007, Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and of the judgment.
26 Rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 19. listopada 2007., predmeti C-402/07 i C-432/07 spojeni su u svrhu pisanog i usmenog dijela postupka kao i donošenja presude.
27 Before the national courts, the applicants in the main actions claim from Condor and Air France respectively the compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 on the ground that with those airlines they reached their airports of destination, in the first case, 25 and, in the second case, 22 hours after the scheduled arrival times. Condor and Air France assert that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation, since the flights concerned were not cancelled but delayed and Regulation No 261/2004 provides for a right to compensation only in the case of flight cancellation. Furthermore, the airlines maintain that the late arrival of the flights was attributable to technical faults on the aircraft, which are covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, and that they are thus released from the obligation to pay compensation.
27 Pred nacionalnim sudovima, tužitelji u glavnim postupcima zahtijevaju od društava Condor i Air France odštetu predviđenu u članku 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 uz obrazloženje da su s tim zračnim prijevoznicima stigli u svoje odredišne zračne luke, u prvom slučaju, 25 sati i, u drugom slučaju, 22 sata nakon planiranog vremena dolaska. Condor i Air France tvrde da tužitelji nemaju pravo ni na kakvu odštetu, budući da dotični letovi nisu bili otkazani nego su kasnili, a Uredbom br. 261/2004 predviđa se pravo na odštetu samo u slučaju otkazivanja leta. Osim toga, ovi zračni prijevoznici smatraju da se zakašnjeli dolazak letova može pripisati tehničkim greškama na zrakoplovu, koje su obuhvaćene pojmom „izvanredne okolnosti“ u smislu članka 5. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 261/2004 te da su stoga oslobođeni obveze plaćanja odštete.
28 In those circumstances, in order to give the national courts a useful answer, the questions referred should be understood as seeking, in essence, to ascertain:
28 U tim okolnostima, kako bi se nacionalnim sudovima dali korisni odgovori, prethodna pitanja treba shvatiti tako da se njima u biti traži utvrđivanje:
"– whether a flight delay must be regarded as a flight cancellation for the purposes of Articles 2(l) and 5 of Regulation No 261/2004 where the delay is long;"
"treba li kašnjenje leta smatrati otkazom leta za potrebe članka 2. točke (l) i članka 5. Uredbe br. 261/2004, kada je kašnjenje dugotrajno;"
– whether Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may, for the purpose of the application of the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of that regulation, be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled, and
treba li članke 5., 6. i 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 tumačiti tako da znače da se prema putnicima čiji letovi kasne može, za potrebe primjene prava na odštetu utvrđenog u članku 7. te Uredbe, postupati kao prema putnicima čiji su letovi otkazani, i
– whether a technical problem in an aircraft is covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
je li tehnički problem na zrakoplovu obuhvaćen pojmom „izvanredne okolnosti” za potrebe članka 5. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 261/2004.
The first part of the questions referred, concerning the concept of delay
Prvi dio prethodnih pitanja, koji se odnosi na pojam kašnjenja
29 Regulation No 261/2004 does not contain a definition of ‘flight delay’. That concept may, however, be clarified in the light of the context in which it occurs.
29 Uredba br. 261/2004 ne sadržava definiciju pojma „kašnjenje leta” Taj se pojam, međutim, može pojasniti s obzirom na kontekst u kojem se pojavljuje.
30 In that regard, it should be recalled, first, that a ‘flight’ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 consists in an air transport operation, performed by an air carrier which fixes its itinerary (Case C-173/07 Emirates Airlines [2008] ECR I-5237, paragraph 40). Thus, the itinerary is an essential element of the flight, as the flight is operated in accordance with the carrier’s pre-arranged planning.
30 U vezi s tim, prvo valja podsjetiti da se „let” u smislu Uredbe br. 261/2004 sastoji od operacije zračnog prijevoza koju izvodi zračni prijevoznik, koji određuje svoj plan putovanja (presuda od 10. srpnja 2008., Emirates Airlines, C-173/07, Zb., str. I-5237., t. 40.). Stoga je plan putovanja bitan element leta budući da se let izvodi u skladu s unaprijed određenim planom prijevoznika.
31 It is clear furthermore from Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 that the Community legislature adopted a notion of ‘flight delay’ which is considered only by reference to the scheduled departure time and which implies as a consequence that, after the departure time, the other elements pertaining to the flight must remain unchanged.
31 Osim toga, iz članka 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 proizlazi da je zakonodavac Zajednice usvojio pojam „kašnjenje leta” koji je određen samo u odnosu na planirano vrijeme odlaska, čime se posljedično podrazumijeva da nakon vremena odlaska ostali elementi koji se odnose na let moraju ostati nepromijenjeni.
32 Thus, a flight is ‘delayed’ for the purposes of Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 if it is operated in accordance with the original planning and its actual departure time is later than the scheduled departure time.
32 Stoga, za potrebe članka 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 let „kasni” ako se izvodi u skladu s prvotnim planom, pri čemu je njegovo stvarno vrijeme odlaska kasnije od planiranog vremena odlaska.
33 Second, according to Article 2(l) of Regulation No 261/2004, flight cancellation, unlike delay, is the result of non-operation of a flight which was previously planned. It follows that, in that regard, cancelled flights and delayed flights are two quite distinct categories of flights. It cannot therefore be inferred from Regulation No 261/2004 that a flight which is delayed may be classified as a ‘cancelled flight’ merely on the ground that the delay is extended, even substantially.
33 Drugo, valja istaknuti da je u skladu s člankom 2. točkom (l) Uredbe br. 261/2004, otkazivanje leta, za razliku od kašnjenja leta, rezultat neizvođenja leta koji je prethodno bio planiran. Iz navedenog proizlazi da su u tom smislu otkazani letovi i letovi koji kasne dvije posve različite kategorije letova. Stoga se iz Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne može zaključiti da se za let koji kasni može ocijeniti da je „otkazani let“ samo na temelju činjenice da je kašnjenje produljeno, čak i ako je to produljenje znatno.
34 Consequently, a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where there is a departure in accordance with the original planning.
34 Stoga se let koji kasni, bez obzira na trajanje kašnjenja čak i kada je ono dugotrajno, ne može smatrati otkazanim ako je odlazak obavljen u skladu s prvotnim planom.
35 In those circumstances, where passengers are carried on a flight whose departure time is later than the departure time originally scheduled, the flight can be classified as ‘cancelled’ only if the air carrier arranges for the passengers to be carried on another flight whose original planning is different from that of the flight for which the booking was made.
35 U tim okolnostima, ako se putnici prevezu letom čije je vrijeme odlaska kasnije od prvotno planiranog vremena odlaska, za let se može ocijeniti da je „otkazan” samo ako zračni prijevoznik organizira prijevoz putnika drugim letom čiji je prvotni plan različit od prvotnog plana leta za koji su putnici imali rezervaciju.
36 Thus, it is possible, as a rule, to conclude that there is a cancellation where the delayed flight for which the booking was made is ‘rolled over’ onto another flight, that is to say, where the planning for the original flight is abandoned and the passengers from that flight join passengers on a flight which was also planned – but independently of the flight for which the passengers so transferred had made their bookings.
36 Stoga se u načelu može zaključiti da se o otkazivanju leta radi kada se let koji kasni i za koji putnici imaju rezervaciju „prebaci” na drugi let, to jest, kada se plan za prvotni let napusti te se putnici s tog leta pridruže putnicima nekog drugog leta koji je također bio planiran – ali neovisno o letu za koji su tako prevezeni putnici imali rezervaciju.
37 By contrast, it cannot, as a rule, be concluded that there is a flight delay or cancellation on the basis of a ‘delay’ or a ‘cancellation’ being shown on the airport departures board or announced by the air carrier’s staff. Similarly, the fact that passengers recover their luggage or obtain new boarding cards is not, as a rule, a deciding factor. Those circumstances are not connected with the objective characteristics of the flight as such. They can be attributable to inaccurate classifications or to factors obtaining in the airport concerned or, yet again, they may be unavoidable given the waiting time and the fact that it is necessary for the passengers concerned to spend the night in a hotel.
37 Za razliku od toga, u načelu se ne može zaključiti da se radi o kašnjenju ili otkazivanju leta na temelju toga što je na ploči s informacijama o odlascima u zračnoj luci prikazana oznaka „kasni” ili „otkazano” ili na temelju toga što su to objavili zaposlenici zračnog prijevoznika. Slično tome, činjenica da je putnicima vraćena prtljaga ili da su dobili novu ukrcajnu kartu nije, u načelu, odlučujući čimbenik. Navedene okolnosti nisu povezane s objektivnim obilježjima leta. One se mogu pripisati pogrešnoj ocjeni ili prevladavajućim čimbenicima u dotičnoj zračnoj luci ili, također, mogu biti neizbježne s obzirom na vrijeme čekanja i činjenicu da dotični putnici moraju prenoćiti u hotelu.
38 Nor, as a rule, is it conclusive that the composition of the group of passengers who initially held reservations is essentially identical to that of the group subsequently transported. Indeed, as the delay grows longer by reference to the departure time originally scheduled, the number of passengers in the first of those groups may decrease because some passengers have been offered re-routing on another flight and others, for personal reasons, have decided not to take the delayed flight. Conversely, to the extent that seats have become available on the flight for which the booking was made, there is nothing to prevent the carrier accepting, before departure of the plane which is delayed, additional passengers.
38 Također, u pravilu, nije odlučujuće ni to da sastav skupine putnika koji su imali prvotne rezervacije bude u osnovi jednak sastavu skupine koja se preveze kasnije. Uistinu, kako se kašnjenje produljuje u odnosu na prvotno planirano vrijeme odlaska, broj putnika iz prve od tih skupina može se smanjiti zbog toga što je nekim putnicima ponuđeno preusmjeravanje na drugi let, a neki drugi su iz osobnih razloga odlučili da ne putuju letom koji kasni. S druge strane, ukoliko su sjedala na letu za koji su putnici imali rezervaciju postala slobodna, nema razloga zbog kojih bi prijevoznik bio spriječen da prije odlaska leta koji kasni prihvati dodatne putnike.
39 In view of the foregoing, the answer to the first part of the questions referred is that Articles 2(l), 5 and 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where the flight is operated in accordance with the air carrier’s original planning.
39 Slijedom navedenog, odgovor na prvi dio postavljenih pitanja valja odgovoriti da članak 2. točka (l), članak 5. i članak 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 treba tumačiti tako da se let koji kasni, bez obzira na trajanje kašnjenja čak i kada je ono dugo, ne može smatrati otkazanim ako je izveden u skladu s prvotnim planom zračnog prijevoznika.
The second part of the questions referred, concerning the right to compensation in the event of delay
Drugi dio prethodnih pitanja, koji se odnosi na pravo na odštetu u slučaju kašnjenja