natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
9 Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed `Right to care', is worded as follows:
9 Članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004, naslovljen „Pravo na skrb", glasi:
where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary, or
-- kada je potrebno ostati jednu ili više noći, ili
-- where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary;
-- kada je potreban ostanak duži od onoga koji je putnik planirao;
10 Under the heading `Further compensation', Article 12(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 provides that `this Regulation shall apply without prejudice to a passenger's rights to further compensation.
10 Člankom 12. stavkom 1. Uredbe br. 261/2004 pod naslovom „Dodatna odšteta" predviđa se da se „ova Uredba primjenjuje ne dovodeći u pitanje prava putnika na dodatnu odštetu.
The compensation granted under this Regulation may be deducted from such compensation.'
Odšteta dodijeljena putniku ovom Uredbom može se odbiti od iznosa takve odštete." 11 Članak 16.
11 Article 16 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed `Infringements', reads as follows:
Uredbe br. 261/2004, naslovljen „Kršenja Uredbe", glasi:
`1. Each Member State shall designate a body responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards flights from airports situated on its territory and flights from a third country to such airports.
„1. Svaka pojedina država članica određuje tijelo odgovorno za provođenje ove Uredbe u vezi s letovima iz zračnih luka smještenih na njezinom državnom području i letova iz treće zemlje u te iste zračne luke.
Where appropriate, this body shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected.
Tamo gdje se to zahtijeva, ovo tijelo poduzima potrebne mjere kako bi osiguralo poštovanje prava putnika.
The Member States shall inform the Commission of the body that has been designated in accordance with this paragraph.
Države članice izvješćuju Komisiju o tijelu koje je određeno u skladu s ovim stavkom. [...]
... 3. The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.'
3. Sankcije koje je odredila država članica zbog kršenja ove Uredbe moraju biti učinkovite, proporcionalne i odvraćajuće."
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Glavni postupak i prethodna pitanja 12 Dana 11. veljače 2010.
12 On 11 February 2010, Ms McDonagh booked a flight with Ryanair from Faro (Portugal) to Dublin (Ireland) scheduled for 17 April 2010, for EUR 98.
D. McDonagh je za 98 EUR rezervirala let prijevoznikom Ryanair iz Faroa (Portugal) u Dublin (Irska), koji je bio planiran za 17. travnja 2010.
On 20 March 2010, the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland began to erupt.
Vulkan Eyjafjallajökull koji se nalazi na Islandu počeo je eruptirati 20. ožujka 2010.
On 14 April 2010, it entered an explosive phase, casting a cloud of volcanic ash into the skies over Europe.
Erupcija je 14. travnja 2010. ušla u eksplozivnu fazu, izbacujući oblak vulkanskog pepela u nebo iznad Europe.
On 15 April 2010, the competent air traffic authorities closed the airspace over a number of Member States because of the risks to aircraft.
Nadležna tijela za zračni promet zatvorila su 15. travnja 2010. zračni prostor iznad određenog broja država članica zbog rizika za zrakoplove.
13 On 17 April 2010, Ms McDonagh's flight was cancelled following the closure of Irish airspace.
13 Let kojim je trebala letjeti D. McDonagh otkazan je 17. travnja 2010., nakon zatvaranja irskog zračnog prostora.
Ryanair flights between continental Europe and Ireland resumed on 22 April 2010 and Ms McDonagh was not able to return to Dublin until 24 April 2010.
Letovi prijevoznika Ryanair između kontinentalne Europe i Irske ponovno su uspostavljeni 22. travnja 2010., a D. McDonagh se nije mogla vratiti u Dublin do 24. travnja 2010.
14 During the period between 17 and 24 April 2010, Ryanair did not provide Ms McDonagh with care in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004.
14 Tijekom razdoblja od 17. do 24. travnja 2010. Ryanair nije pružio skrb D. McDonagh u skladu s detaljnim pravilima utvrđenim u članku 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004.
15 Ms McDonagh brought an action against Ryanair before the referring court for compensation in the amount of EUR 1 129.41, corresponding to the costs which she had incurred during that period on meals, refreshments, accommodation and transport.
15 D. McDonagh podnijela je tužbu protiv Ryanaira pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, zahtijevajući odštetu u iznosu od 1129,41 EUR, koji iznos odgovara troškovima koje je ona imala tijekom tog razdoblja za hranu, osvježavajuće napitke, smještaj i prijevoz.
16 Ryanair claims that the closure of part of European airspace following the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano does not constitute `extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 but `super extraordinary circumstances', releasing it not only from its obligation to pay compensation but also from its obligations to provide care under Articles 5 and 9 of that regulation.
16 Ryanair tvrdi da zatvaranje dijela europskog zračnog prostora nakon erupcije vulkana Eyjafjallajökull ne predstavlja „izvanredne okolnosti" u smislu Uredbe br. 261/2004, nego „izrazito izvanredne okolnosti" koje ga oslobađaju ne samo od obveze plaćanja odštete nego također i od obveza pružanja skrbi u skladu s člancima 5. i 9. te Uredbe.
17 In light of its doubts as to whether the obligation to provide that care may be subject to limitations in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings and taking the view that the Court of Justice has not yet ruled on that matter, the Dublin Metropolitan District Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
17 S obzirom na dvojbu može li obveza pružanja skrbi podlijegati ograničenjima u okolnostima poput onih u glavnom postupku i s obzirom da Sud u tom predmetu još nije odlučio, Dublin Metropolitan District Court je odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu postaviti sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`(1) Do circumstances such as the closures of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland, which caused widespread and prolonged disruption to air travel, go beyond "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004?
„1. Premašuju li okolnosti, poput zatvaranja europskog zračnog prostora zbog erupcije vulkana Eyjafjallajökull na Islandu koja je uzrokovala opsežan i produženi poremećaj zračnog prometa, „izvanredne okolnosti" u smislu Uredbe br. 261/2004?
(2) If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is liability for the duty to provide care excluded under Articles 5 and 9 [of Regulation No 261/2004] in such circumstances?
2. U slučaju potvrdnog odgovora na prvo pitanje, je li u takvim okolnostima obveza pružanja skrbi isključena na temelju članaka 5. i 9. [Uredbe br. 261/2004]?
(3) If the answer to Question 2 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 [of Regulation No 261/2004] invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an "equitable balance of interests" enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ["the Charter"]?
3. U slučaju negativnog odgovora na drugo pitanje, jesu li članci 5. i 9. [Uredbe br. 261/2004] nevaljani utoliko što krše načela proporcionalnosti i nediskriminacije, načelo ,pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa' sadržano u Montrealskoj konvenciji, i članke 16. i 17. Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima [,Povelja']?
(4) Is the obligation in Articles 5 and 9 [of Regulation No 261/2004] to be interpreted as containing an implied limitation, such as a temporal and/or a monetary limit, to provide care in cases where cancellation is caused by "extraordinary circumstances"?
4. Treba li obvezu iz članaka 5. i 9. [Uredbe br. 261/2004] tumačiti tako da se podrazumijeva da sadržava ograničenje, poput vremenskog i/ili novčanog ograničenja, pri pružanju skrbi u slučajevima kada je otkazivanje leta uzrokovano ,izvanrednim okolnostima'?
(5) If the answer to Question 4 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 [of Regulation No 261/2004] invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an "equitable balance of interests" enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the [Charter]?'
5. U slučaju negativnog odgovora na četvrto pitanje, jesu li članci 5. i 9. [Uredbe br. 261/2004] nevaljani utoliko što krše načela proporcionalnosti i nediskriminacije, načelo ,pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa' sadržano u Montrealskoj konvenciji, i članke 16. i 17. [Povelje]?"
18 The Council of the European Union claims, in essence, that the questions are inadmissible on the basis that they are not relevant to the dispute in the main proceedings, since, in the event of cancellation of a flight and regardless of the cause of that cancellation, air passengers cannot invoke before a national court failure of an air carrier to comply with its obligation, laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, to provide care in order to obtain compensation from that air carrier.
18 Vijeće Europske unije u biti ističe da su navedena pitanja nedopuštena zbog toga što nisu relevantna za glavni postupak, budući da se u slučaju otkazivanja leta i bez obzira na uzrok tog otkazivanja, putnici u zračnom prometu ne mogu pred nacionalnim sudom pozvati na to da zračni prijevoznik nije ispunio svoju obvezu pružanja skrbi utvrđenu u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i u članku 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004, kako bi od toga zračnog prijevoznika dobili odštetu.
19 It is to be recalled that, under Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004, in the event of cancellation of a flight the passengers concerned are to be offered assistance by the air carrier, under the conditions laid down in that subparagraph, meeting the costs of meals, accommodation and communication as provided for in Article 9 of that regulation.
19 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da na temelju članka 5. stavka 1. točke (b) Uredbe br. 261/2004, u slučaju otkazivanja leta, zračni prijevoznik treba pod uvjetima utvrđenim u toj točki dotičnim putnicima ponuditi skrb u smislu pokrića troškova obroka, smještaja i komunikacije, kako je propisano člankom 9. te uredbe.
20 The Court has already had occasion to explain that, when an air carrier fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, an air passenger is justified in claiming a right to compensation on the basis of the factors set out in those provisions (see, to that effect, Case C-83/10 Sousa Rodríguez and Others [2011] ECR I-9469 [HYPERLINK: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/query.html?DN=62010C?0083&locale=EN], paragraph 44) and that such a claim cannot be understood as seeking damages, by way of redress on an individual basis, for the harm resulting from the cancellation of the flight concerned in the conditions laid down, inter alia, in Article 22 of the Montreal Convention (see, to that effect, Sousa Rodríguez and Others, paragraph 38).
20 Sud je već imao priliku objasniti da, kada zračni prijevoznik ne ispuni svoje obveze iz članka 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004, putnik u zračnom prometu ima pravo zahtijevati odštetu na temelju elemenata navedenih u tim odredbama (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 13. listopada 2011., Sousa Rodríguez i dr., C-83/10, Zb., str. I-9469., t. 44.) te da se takav zahtjev ne može tumačiti kao traženje odštete na individualnoj osnovi za štetu koja je nastala radi otkazivanja predmetnog leta pod uvjetima utvrđenima, između ostalog, u članku 22. Montrealske konvencije (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Sousa Rodríguez i dr., t. 38.).
21 A claim such as that at issue in the main proceedings seeks to obtain, from the air carrier, equivalent compliance with its obligation to provide care arising from Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, an obligation which, it should be recalled, operates at an earlier stage than the system laid down by the Montreal Convention (see Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann [2008] ECR I-11061 [HYPERLINK: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/query.html?DN=62007C?0549&locale=EN], paragraph 32, and Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10 Nelson and Others [2012] ECR, paragraph 57).
21 Zahtjevom poput onog o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku želi se postići da zračni prijevoznik u jednakoj mjeri ispunjava svoju obvezu pružanja skrbi temeljem članka 5. stavka 1. točke (b) i članka 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004, a valja podsjetiti da je to obveza koja ima učinak u ranijoj fazi nego mehanizam utvrđen Montrealskom konvencijom (vidjeti presudu od 22. prosinca 2008., Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07, Zb., str. I-11061., t. 32. i presudu od 23. listopada 2012., Nelson i dr., spojeni predmeti C-581/10 i C-629/10, t. 57.).
22 The fact, noted in this connection by the Council, that each Member State designates a body responsible for the enforcement of Regulation No 261/2004 which, where appropriate, takes the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected and which each passenger may complain to about an alleged infringement of that regulation, in accordance with Article 16 of the regulation, is not such as to affect the right of a passenger to such reimbursement.
22 Činjenica, koju je u vezi s tim napomenulo Vijeće, da svaka država članica određuje tijelo odgovorno za provođenje Uredbe br. 261/2004 koje, prema potrebi, poduzima potrebne mjere kako bi osiguralo poštovanje prava putnika i kojem svaki putnik može, u skladu s člankom 16. te Uredbe, uložiti prigovor u vezi s navodnim kršenjem iste uredbe, ne može utjecati na pravo putnika na takvu nadoknadu.
23 Article 16 cannot be interpreted as allowing only national bodies responsible for the enforcement of Regulation No 261/2004 to sanction the failure of air carriers to comply with their obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of that regulation to provide care.
23 Članak 16. ne može se tumačiti tako da se samo nacionalnim tijelima odgovornim za provođenje Uredbe br. 261/2004 dopušta sankcioniranje zračnih prijevoznika za neispunjavanje njihove obveze pružanja skrbi utvrđene u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. te Uredbe.
24 Consequently, it must be held that an air passenger may invoke before a national court the failure of an air carrier to comply with its obligation, laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, to provide care in order to obtain compensation from that air carrier for the costs which it should have borne under those provisions.
24 Stoga valja utvrditi da se putnik u zračnom prometu može pred nacionalnim sudom pozvati na to da zračni prijevoznik nije ispunio svoju obvezu pružanja skrbi utvrđenu u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i u članku 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 kako bi od toga zračnog prijevoznika dobio odštetu za troškove koje je on trebao snositi u skladu s tim odredbama.
25 Since the questions are relevant to the outcome of the dispute, the request for a preliminary ruling is therefore admissible.
25 Slijedom toga, kako su pitanja relevantna za ishod spora, zahtjev za prethodnu odluku je dopušten.
26 By its first question the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that circumstances such as the closure of part of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano constitute `extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of that regulation which do not release air carriers from their obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of the regulation to provide care or, on the contrary and because of their particular scale, go beyond the scope of that notion, thus releasing air carriers from that obligation.
26 Svojim prvim pitanjem, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članak 5. Uredbe 261/2004 tumačiti tako da okolnosti, kao što je zatvaranje dijela europskog zračnog prostora zbog erupcije vulkana Eyjafjallajökull, predstavljaju „izvanredne okolnosti" u smislu te uredbe koje ne oslobađaju zračne prijevoznike od njihove obveze pružanja skrbi utvrđene u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. navedene uredbe ili, suprotno tome, i zbog njihovih posebnih razmjera, premašuju opseg tog pojma, oslobađajući time zračne prijevoznike od te obveze.
27 At the outset, it should be noted that the term `extraordinary circumstances' is not defined in Article 2 of Regulation No 261/2004 or in the other provisions of that regulation, even though a non-exhaustive list of those circumstances can be derived from recitals 14 and 15 in the preamble to the regulation.
27 Najprije treba napomenuti da pojam „izvanredne okolnosti" nije definiran u članku 2. Uredbe br. 261/2004 ni u drugim odredbama te uredbe, iako se iz uvodnih izjava 14. i 15. te uredbe može izvesti netaksativan popis tih okolnosti.
28 It is settled case-law that the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 17).
28 Ustaljena je sudska praksa da se značenje i opseg pojmova za koje ne postoji definicija u pravu Europske unije moraju odrediti uvažavajući njihovo uobičajeno značenje u svakodnevnom govoru, uzimajući također u obzir kontekst u kojem se pojavljuju i svrhu pravila čiji su oni dio (gore navedena presuda Wallentin-Hermann, t. 17.).
29 In accordance with everyday language, the words `extraordinary circumstances' literally refer to circumstances which are `out of the ordinary'.
29 U svakodnevnom govoru, riječi „izvanredne okolnosti" odnose se doslovce na okolnosti koje su „izvan uobičajenog".
In the context of air transport, they refer to an event which is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 23).
U kontekstu zračnog prijevoza, one se odnose na događaj koji nije svojstven redovnom obavljanju djelatnosti predmetnog zračnog prijevoznika te je izvan njegove stvarne kontrole zbog svoje naravi ili svojeg podrijetla (gore navedena presuda Wallentin-Hermann, t. 23.).
In other words, as the Advocate General noted in point 34 of his Opinion, they relate to all circumstances which are beyond the control of the air carrier, whatever the nature of those circumstances or their gravity.
Drugim riječima, kako je napomenuo nezavisni odvjetnik u t. 34. svojeg mišljenja, one se odnose na sve okolnosti koje su izvan kontrole zračnog prijevoznika, bez obzira na to kakva je narav ili ozbiljnost tih okolnosti.
30 Regulation No 261/2004 contains nothing that would allow the conclusion to be drawn that it recognises a separate category of `particularly extraordinary' events, beyond `extraordinary circumstances' referred to in Article 5(3) of that regulation, which would lead to the air carrier being exempted from all its obligations, including those under Article 9 of the regulation.
30 Uredba br. 261/2004 ne sadržava ništa na temelju čega bi se moglo zaključiti da se njome priznaje posebna kategorija „posebno izvanrednih" događaja koji su izvan opsega „izvanrednih okolnosti" iz članka 5. stavka 3. navedene Uredbe, zbog kojih bi zračni prijevoznik bio oslobođen svih svojih obveza, uključujući i one iz članka 9. te uredbe.
31 Next, as for the context of and the aims pursued by Article 5 of Regulation No 261/2004, which prescribes the obligations of an air carrier in the event of cancellation of a flight, it must be noted, first, that when exceptional circumstances arise, Article 5(3) exempts the air carrier only from its obligation to pay compensation under Article 7 of that regulation.
31 Nadalje, što se tiče konteksta i ciljeva članka 5. Uredbe br. 261/2004 kojim se propisuju obveze zračnog prijevoznika u slučaju otkazivanja leta, valja napomenuti da se člankom 5. stavkom 3., kada se pojave izvanredne okolnosti, zračni prijevoznik oslobađa samo obveze plaćanja odštete na temelju članka 7. te uredbe.
The European Union legislature thus took the view that the obligation on the air carrier to provide care under Article 9 of that regulation is necessary whatever the event which has given rise to the cancellation of the flight.
Stoga je zakonodavac Europske unije smatrao da je obveza pružanja skrbi zračnog prijevoznika na temelju članka 9. potrebna, bez obzira na događaj zbog kojeg je došlo do otkazivanja leta.
Second, it is clear from recitals 1 and 2 of Regulation No 261/2004 that the regulation aims at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers and takes account of the requirements of consumer protection in general, inasmuch as cancellation of flights causes serious inconvenience to passengers (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 18, and Nelson and Others, paragraph 72).
Drugo, iz uvodnih izjava 1. i 2. Uredbe br. 261/2004 jasno proizlazi da je cilj ove Uredbe osiguravanje visoke razine zaštite putnika te da se njome vodi računa o zahtjevima u pogledu zaštite potrošača općenito budući da otkazivanje leta putnicima uzrokuje velike neugodnosti (gore navedene presude Wallentin-Hermann, t. 18. i Nelson i dr., t. 72.).
32 If circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings went beyond the scope of `extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 due in particular to their origin and scale, such an interpretation would go against not only the meaning of that notion in everyday language but also the objectives of that regulation.
32 Kada bi okolnosti poput onih u glavnom postupku prelazile opseg „izvanrednih okolnosti" u smislu Uredbe br. 261/2004, posebno radi njihovog podrijetla i opsega, takvo bi tumačenje bilo protivno ne samo značenju tog pojma u svakodnevnom govoru, nego također i ciljevima te uredbe.
33 Such an interpretation would in fact mean that air carriers would be required to provide care pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to air passengers who find themselves, due to cancellation of a flight, in a situation causing limited inconvenience, whereas passengers, such as the plaintiff in the main proceedings, who find themselves in a particularly vulnerable state in that they are forced to remain at an airport for several days would be denied that care.
33 Takvo bi tumačenje u stvari značilo da se od zračnih prijevoznika zahtijeva pružanje skrbi u skladu s člankom 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 putnicima u zračnom prometu koji se zbog otkazivanja leta nađu u situaciji koja uzrokuje ograničenu neugodnost, dok bi se takva skrb uskratila putnicima, poput tužitelja u glavnom postupku, koji se nađu u posebno ranjivom stanju jer su prisiljeni ostati u zračnoj luci nekoliko dana.
34 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 5 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that circumstances such as the closure of part of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano constitute `extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of that regulation which do not release air carriers from their obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of the regulation to provide care.
34 Slijedom navedenog, na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 5. Uredbe br. 261/2004 treba tumačiti tako da znači da okolnosti poput zatvaranja dijela europskog zračnog prostora zbog erupcije vulkana Eyjafjallajökull jesu „izvanredne okolnosti" u smislu te uredbe, koje ne oslobađaju zračne prijevoznike od njihove obveze pružanja skrbi utvrđene u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. te uredbe.
35 It follows from the answer given to the first question that there is no need to answer the second and third questions.
35 Iz odgovora na prvo pitanje proizlazi da nije potrebno odgovoriti na drugo i treće pitanje.
The fourth and fifth questions
Četvrto i peto pitanje