natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
40 Article 5(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 provides that in the event of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned are to have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7 of the regulation.
40 Člankom 5. stavkom 1. predviđa se da u slučaju otkazivanja leta dotični putnici imaju pravo na odštetu od strane stvarnog zračnog prijevoznika u skladu s člankom 7. te Uredbe.
41 By contrast, it does not expressly follow from the wording of Regulation No 261/2004 that passengers whose flights are delayed have such a right. Nevertheless, as the Court has made clear in its case-law, it is necessary, in interpreting a provision of Community law, to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 50, and Case C-306/05 SGAE [2006] ECR I-11519, paragraph 34).
41 Za razliku od toga, iz teksta Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne proizlazi izričito da takvo pravo imaju putnici čiji letovi kasne. Ipak, kako je Sud pojasnio u svojoj sudskoj praksi, prilikom tumačenja odredbe prava Zajednice valja uzeti u obzir ne samo formulaciju te odredbe, nego i kontekst u kojemu se nalazi te ciljeve propisa kojeg je dio (vidjeti, između ostalog, presudu od 19. rujna 2000., Njemačka/Komisija, C-156/98, Zb., str. I-6857., t. 50. i presudu od 7. prosinca 2006., SGAE, C-306/05, Zb., str. I-11519., t. 34.).
42 In that regard, the operative part of a Community act is indissociably linked to the statement of reasons for it, so that, when it has to be interpreted, account must be taken of the reasons which led to its adoption (Case C-298/00 P Italy v Commission [2004] ECR I-4087, paragraph 97 and the case-law cited).
42 U tom smislu izreka akta neodvojiva je od njegova obrazloženja, tako da se isti mora tumačiti, ako je to potrebno, vodeći računa o razlozima koji su doveli do njegova donošenja (presuda od 29. travnja 2004., Italija/Komisija, C-298/00 P, Zb., str. I-4087., t. 97. i navedena sudska praksa).
43 It must be stated that, even though the possibility of relying on ‘extraordinary circumstances’, allowing air carriers to be released from the obligation to pay compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, is provided for only in Article 5(3) thereof, which concerns flight cancellation, Recital 15 in the preamble to the regulation nevertheless states that that ground may also be relied on where an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to ‘a long delay [or] an overnight delay’. As the notion of long delay is mentioned in the context of extraordinary circumstances, it must be held that the legislature also linked that notion to the right to compensation.
43 Valja napomenuti da iako je mogućnost pozivanja na „izvanredne okolnosti”, koje zračnom prijevozniku omogućuju oslobađanje od obveze plaćanja odštete u skladu s člankom 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004, predviđena samo u članku 5. stavku 3. te uredbe koji se odnosi na otkazivanje leta, u uvodnoj izjavi 15. navedene uredbe navodi se da se na tu osnovu također može pozvati kada odluka koja je donesena u okviru upravljanja zračnim prometom u vezi s određenim zrakoplovom određenog dana dovede do „dugog kašnjenja leta [ili], kašnjenja leta preko noći”. Kako je pojam dugog kašnjenja naveden u kontekstu izvanrednih okolnosti, mora se zaključiti da je zakonodavac također povezao taj pojam s pravom na odštetu.
44 That is implicitly borne out by the objective of Regulation No 261/2004, since it is apparent from Recitals 1 to 4 in the preamble, in particular from Recital 2, that the regulation seeks to ensure a high level of protection for air passengers regardless of whether they are denied boarding or whether their flight is cancelled or delayed, since they are all caused similar serious trouble and inconvenience connected with air transport.
44 To je implicitno potkrijepljeno ciljem Uredbe br. 261/2004 budući da iz uvodnih izjava od 1. do 4., posebno iz uvodne izjave 2., proizlazi da se tom uredbom želi osigurati visoka razina zaštite putnika u zračnom prometu bez obzira na to uskraćuje li im se ukrcaj ili je njihov let otkazan ili kasni, budući da svi ti razlozi uzrokuju slične ozbiljne poteškoće i neugodnosti povezane sa zračnim prijevozom.
45 That is a fortiori the case since the provisions conferring rights on air passengers, including those conferring a right to compensation, must be interpreted broadly (see, to that effect, Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 17).
45 Tome je a fortiori tako budući da se odredbe kojima se putnicima u zračnom prometu daju prava, uključujući one odredbe kojima se daje pravo na odštetu, moraju tumačiti široko (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 22. prosinca 2008., Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07, Zb., str. I-11061., t. 17.)
46 In those circumstances it cannot automatically be presumed that passengers whose flights are delayed do not have a right to compensation and cannot, for the purposes of recognition of such a right, be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled.
46 U tim se okolnostima ne može odmah pretpostaviti da putnici čiji letovi kasne nemaju pravo na odštetu i da se za potrebe priznavanja takvog prava prema njima ne može postupati kao prema putnicima čiji su letovi otkazani.
47 Next, it must be stated that, according to a general principle of interpretation, a Community act must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity (see, to that effect, Case C-403/99 Italy v Commission [2001] ECR I-6883, paragraph 37). Likewise, where a provision of Community law is open to several interpretations, preference must be given to that interpretation which ensures that the provision retains its effectiveness (see, inter alia, Case 187/87 Land de Sarre and Others [1988] ECR 5013, paragraph 19, and Case C-434/97 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-1129, paragraph 21).
47 Nadalje, valja napomenuti da se u skladu s općim načelom tumačenja akt Zajednice mora tumačiti u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri tako da se ne dovede u pitanje njegova valjanost (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 4. listopada 2001., Italija/Komisija, C-403/99, Zb., str. I-6883., t. 37.). Isto tako, u slučaju kada je moguće odredbu prava Zajednice tumačiti na više načina, treba dati prednost onom tumačenju koje može sačuvati njezin koristan učinak. (vidjeti osobito presude od 22. rujna 1988., Land de Sarre i dr., C-187/87, Zb., str. 5013., t. 19., i od 24. veljače 2000., Komisija/Francuska, C-434/97, Zb., str. I-1129., t. 21.).
48 In that regard, all Community acts must be interpreted in accordance with primary law as a whole, including the principle of equal treatment, which requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (Case C-210/03 Swedish Match [2004] ECR I-11893, paragraph 70, and Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403, paragraph 95).
48 U tom smislu sve akte Zajednice treba tumačiti u skladu s primarnim pravom u cjelini, uključujući načelo jednakog postupanja kojim se zahtijeva da se u usporedivim situacijama ne postupa na različit način i da se u različitim situacijama ne postupa na jednak način, osim ako je takvo postupanje objektivno opravdano (presude od 14. prosinca 2004, Swedish Match, C-210/03, Zb., str. I-11893., t. 70., i od 10. siječnja 2006., IATA i ELFAA, C-344/04, Zb., str. I-403., t. 95.).
49 In view of the objective of Regulation No 261/2004, which is to strengthen protection for air passengers by redressing damage suffered by them during air travel, situations covered by the regulation must be compared, in particular by reference to the type and extent of the various types of inconvenience and damage suffered by the passengers concerned (see, to that effect, IATA and ELFAA, paragraphs 82, 85, 97 and 98).
49 S obzirom na cilj Uredbe br. 261/2004, tj. jačanje zaštite putnika u zračnom prometu naknadom štete koju su pretrpjeli tijekom putovanja zrakoplovom, situacije obuhvaćene ovom uredbom moraju biti usporedive posebno u odnosu na vrstu i raspon različitih vrsta neugodnosti i štete koje su pretrpjeli dotični putnici (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu IATA i ELFAA, točke 82., 85., 97. i 98.).
50 In this instance, the situation of passengers whose flights are delayed should be compared with that of passengers whose flights are cancelled.
50 U ovom slučaju, situaciju putnika čiji letovi kasne valja usporediti sa situacijom putnika čiji su letovi otkazani.
51 In that connection, Regulation No 261/2004 seeks to redress damage in an immediate and standardised manner and to do so by various forms of intervention which are the subject of rules relating to denied boarding, cancellation and long flight delay (see, to that effect, IATA and ELFAA, paragraph 43).
51 U vezi s tim valja napomenuti da se Uredbom br. 261/2004 šteta nastoji popraviti trenutačno i na standardiziran način, različitim oblicima intervencije koji podliježu pravilima u vezi s uskraćenim ukrcajem, otkazivanjem i dugotrajnim kašnjenjem leta (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu IATA i ELFAA, t. 43.).
52 Regulation No 261/2004 has, in those measures, the objective of repairing, inter alia, damage consisting, for the passengers concerned, in a loss of time which, given that it is irreversible, can be redressed only by compensation.
52 Uredba br. 261/2004 ima u okviru tih mjera za cilj popraviti, između ostalog, štetu koja se za dotične putnike sastoji od gubitka vremena i koja se, s obzirom da je nepovratna, može nadoknaditi samo isplatom odštete.
53 In that regard, it must be stated that that damage is suffered both by passengers whose flights are cancelled and by passengers whose flights are delayed if, prior to reaching their destinations, the latter’s journey time is longer than the time which had originally been scheduled by the air carrier.
53 U tom pogledu valja utvrditi da takva šteta nastaje i za putnike čiji su letovi otkazani i za putnike čiji letovi kasne ako je prije dolaska na njihova odredišta vrijeme putovanja putnika čiji letovi kasne dulje od vremena koje je zračni prijevoznik prvotno planirao.
54 Consequently, passengers whose flights have been cancelled and passengers affected by a flight delay suffer similar damage, consisting in a loss of time, and thus find themselves in comparable situations for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004.
54 Stoga, za putnike čiji su letovi otkazani i za putnike čiji letovi kasne nastaje slična šteta koja se sastoji od gubitka vremena, pa se prema tome, za potrebe primjene prava na odštetu utvrđenog u članku 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004, oni nalaze u usporedivim situacijama.
55 More specifically, the situation of passengers whose flights are delayed is scarcely distinguishable from that of passengers whose flights are cancelled, who are re-routed in accordance with Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 and who may be informed of the flight cancellation at the very last moment, when they actually arrive at the airport (see Case C-204/08 Rehder [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 19).
55 Točnije, situacija putnika čiji letovi kasne jedva se može razlikovati od situacije putnika čiji su letovi otkazani, koji su preusmjereni u skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 1. točkom (c) podtočkom iii. Uredbe br. 261/2004 i koji su o otkazivanju leta možda obaviješteni u posljednjem trenutku, kada su već došli u zračnu luku (vidjeti presudu od 9. srpnja 2009., Rehder, C-204/08, Zb., str. I-06073., t. 19.).
56 First, both categories of passengers are informed, as a rule, at the same time of the incident which will make their journey by air more difficult. Second, even if they are transported to their final destination, they reach it after the time originally scheduled and, as a consequence, they suffer a similar loss of time.
56 Prvo, obje se kategorije putnika u pravilu u istom trenutku obavješćuje o događaju koji će njihovo putovanje zrakoplovom otežati. Drugo, iako ih se preveze do njihovog konačnog odredišta, oni na njega stižu kasnije u odnosu na prvotno planirano vrijeme i, posljedično, pretrpe toliki gubitak vremena.
57 That said, passengers who are re-routed under Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 are afforded the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where the carrier fails to re-route them on a flight which departs no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and reaches their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival. Those passengers thus acquire a right to compensation when they suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours in relation to the duration originally planned by the air carrier.
57 S obzirom na rečeno, putnici koji su u skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 1. točkom (c) podtočkom iii. Uredbe br. 261/12004 preusmjereni, imaju pravo na odštetu utvrđenu u članku 7. te uredbe ako ih zračni prijevoznik ne preusmjeri na let čiji odlazak nije više od jednog sata prije planiranog vremena odlaska i koji stiže na njihovo konačno odredište manje od dva sata kasnije od planiranog vremena dolaska. Ti putnici tako stječu pravo na odštetu, u slučaju kada pretrpe gubitak vremena od tri sata ili više u odnosu na trajanje koje je zračni prijevoznik prvotno planirao.
58 If, by contrast, passengers whose flights are delayed did not acquire any right to compensation, they would be treated less favourably even though, depending on the circumstances, they suffer a similar loss of time, of three hours or more, in the course of their journey.
58 Kada, za razliku od toga, putnici čiji letovi kasne ne bi stekli nikakvo pravo na odštetu, prema njima bi se postupalo nepovoljnije čak i kada, ovisno o okolnostima, tijekom svojeg putovanja pretrpe sličan gubitak vremena, odnosno tri sata ili više.
59 There appears, however, to be no objective ground capable of justifying such a difference in treatment.
59 Čini se, međutim, da nema objektivne osnove kojom bi se opravdala takva razlika u postupanju.
60 Given that the damage sustained by air passengers in cases of cancellation or long delay is comparable, passengers whose flights are delayed and passengers whose flights are cancelled cannot be treated differently without the principle of equal treatment being infringed. That is a fortiori the case in view of the aim sought by Regulation No 261/2004, which is to increase protection for all air passengers.
60 Budući da je šteta koju pretrpe putnici u zračnom prometu u slučajevima otkazivanja ili dugog kašnjenja usporediva, prema putnicima čiji letovi kasne i putnicima čiji su letovi otkazani ne može se postupati različito, a da se time ne krši načelo jednakog postupanja. To je a fortiori slučaj s obzirom na cilj koji se želi postići Uredbom br. 261/2004, a to je povećanje zaštite za sve putnike.
61 In those circumstances, the Court finds that passengers whose flights are delayed may rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 where they suffer, on account of such flights, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is to say when they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier.
61 U tim okolnostima Sud smatra da se putnici čiji letovi kasne mogu pozvati na pravo na odštetu utvrđeno u članku 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 ako radi takvih letova pretrpe gubitak vremena od tri sata ili više, to jest, ako na svoje konačno odredište stignu tri sata ili više nakon vremena dolaska koje je zračni prijevoznik prvotno planirao.
62 That solution is, moreover, consistent with Recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004. As stated at paragraph 43 of this judgment, it must be held that the legislature, in that recital, also linked the notion of ‘long delay’ to the right to compensation. That notion corresponds to a delay to which the legislature attaches certain legal consequences. As Article 6 of the regulation already accepts such legal consequences in the case of certain flights which are delayed for two hours, Recital 15 necessarily covers delays of three hours or more.
62 Štoviše, to je rješenje u skladu s uvodnom izjavom 15. Uredbe br. 261/2004. Kako je navedeno u točki 43. ove presude, mora se smatrati da je zakonodavac u toj uvodnoj izjavi s pravom na odštetu također povezao pojam „dugo kašnjenje”. Taj pojam odgovara kašnjenju s kojim zakonodavac povezuje određene pravne posljedice. Kako se člankom 6. navedene Uredbe već prihvaćaju takve pravne posljedice u slučaju nekih letova koji kasne dva sata, uvodnom izjavom 15. nužno su obuhvaćena kašnjenja od tri sata ili više.
63 It is important to point out that the compensation payable to a passenger under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 may be reduced by 50% if the conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of the regulation are met. Even though the latter provision refers only to the case of re-routing of passengers, the Court finds that the reduction in the compensation provided for is dependent solely on the delay to which passengers are subject, so that nothing precludes the application mutatis mutandis of that provision to compensation paid to passengers whose flights are delayed. It follows that the compensation payable to a passenger whose flight is delayed, who reaches his final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled, may be reduced by 50%, in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, where the delay is – in the case of a flight not falling under points (a) or (b) of Article 7(2) – less than four hours.
63 Važno je istaknuti da se odšteta, koja se na temelju članka 7. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 261/2004 isplaćuje putniku, može smanjiti za 50 % ako su ispunjeni uvjeti utvrđeni u članku 7. stavku 2. navedene uredbe. Iako se ova posljednja odredba odnosi samo na slučaj preusmjeravanja putnika, Sud smatra da predviđeno smanjenje odštete ovisi samo o kašnjenju kojem su putnici izvrgnuti, tako da ništa ne sprečava primjenu te odredbe, mutatis mutandis, na odštetu koja se isplaćuje putnicima čiji letovi kasne. Iz navedenog slijedi da se odšteta koja se isplaćuje putniku čiji let kasni, a koji stigne na svoje konačno odredište tri sata ili više nakon prvotno planiranog vremena dolaska, može umanjiti za 50 % u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 2. točkom (c) ako je kašnjenje – u slučaju leta koji nije obuhvaćen točkama (a) ili (b) članka 7. stavka 2. – manje od četiri sata.
64 The conclusion set out in paragraph 61 of this judgment is not undermined by the fact that Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004 provides for different forms of assistance under Articles 8 and 9 thereof for passengers whose flights are delayed.
64 Zaključak naveden u točki 61. ove presude ne dovodi se u pitanje činjenicom da se člankom 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 za putnike čiji letovi kasne predviđaju različiti oblici pomoći na temelju njezinih članaka 8. i 9.
65 As the Court has already stated, Regulation No 261/2004 provides for various forms of intervention in order to redress, in a standardised and immediate manner, the different types of damage constituted by the inconvenience that delay in the carriage of passengers by air causes (see, to that effect, IATA and ELFAA, paragraphs 43 and 45).
65 Kako je Sud već naveo, Uredbom br. 261/2004 predviđaju se različiti oblici intervencije kako bi se na standardizirani način i trenutačno popravila šteta u smislu neugodnosti prouzročenih kašnjenjima u zračnom prijevozu putnika (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu IATA i ELFAA, t. 43. i 45.).
66 Those measures are autonomous in the sense that they address different aims and seek to make up for various types of damage caused by such delay.
66 Te su mjere autonomne u smislu da su usmjerene različitim ciljevima i da se njima nastoji ublažiti različite vrste štete uzrokovane takvim kašnjenjem.
67 That said, it should be recalled that, with the adoption of Regulation No 261/2004, the legislature was also seeking to strike a balance between the interests of air passengers and those of air carriers. Having laid down certain rights for those passengers, it provided at the same time, in Recital 15 and Article 5(3) of the regulation, that air carriers are not obliged to pay compensation if they can prove that the cancellation or long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances which are beyond the air carrier’s actual control.
67 S obzirom na rečeno, valja podsjetiti da je donošenjem Uredbe br. 261/2004 zakonodavac također nastojao postići ravnotežu između interesa putnika u zračnom prometu i interesa zračnih prijevoznika. Utvrdivši određena prava za te putnike, istovremeno je u uvodnoj izjavi 15. i u članku 5. stavku 3. navedene uredbe predvidio da zračni prijevoznici nisu obvezni platiti odštetu ako mogu dokazati da je do otkazivanja ili dugog kašnjenja došlo zbog izvanrednih okolnosti koje se nisu mogle izbjeći čak ni uz poduzimanje svih razumnih mjera, to jest zbog okolnosti koje su izvan stvarne kontrole zračnog prijevoznika.
68 Moreover, the discharge of obligations pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 is without prejudice to air carriers’ rights to seek compensation from any person who caused the delay, including third parties, as Article 13 of the regulation provides. Such compensation may accordingly reduce or even remove the financial burden borne by carriers in consequence of those obligations. Nor does it appear unreasonable for those obligations initially to be borne, subject to the abovementioned right to compensation, by the air carriers with which the passengers concerned have a contract of carriage that entitles them to a flight that should be neither cancelled nor delayed (IATA and ELFAA, paragraph 90).
68 Osim toga, ispunjenjem obveza u skladu s Uredbom br. 261/2004 ne dovode se u pitanje prava zračnih prijevoznika da zatraže odštetu od bilo koje osobe koja je uzrokovala kašnjenje, uključujući treću stranu, kako je to predviđeno člankom 13. te uredbe. Stoga takav regres može ublažiti ili čak ukloniti financijsko opterećenje koje zračni prijevoznici imaju zbog tih obveza. Isto se tako ne čini nerazumnim da, pod uvjetom prethodno navedenog prava na regres, te obveze prvo snose zračni prijevoznici s kojima su predmetni putnici sklopili ugovor o prijevozu na temelju kojeg imaju pravo na let koji ne bi smio biti ni otkazan ni odgođen. (gore navedena presuda IATA i ELFAA, t. 90.).