natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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-0000, 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, paragraph 32, and Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10 Nelson and Others [2012] ECR I-0000, 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.).
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.
29 In accordance with everyday language, the words ‘extraordinary circumstances’ literally refer to circumstances which are ‘out of the ordinary’. 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). 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.
29 U svakodnevnom govoru, riječi „izvanredne okolnosti” odnose se doslovce na okolnosti koje su „izvan uobičajenog”. 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.). 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. 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. 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).
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. 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. 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.
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.
36 By its fourth and fifth questions, which should be examined together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the obligation to provide care to passengers laid down in those provisions is limited in temporal or monetary terms and, if not, whether those provisions thus interpreted are invalid in the light of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ referred to in the Montreal Convention or Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter.
36 Svojim četvrtim i petim pitanjem, koje treba ispitati zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe 261/2004 tumačiti tako da je u slučaju otkazivanja leta zbog „izvanrednih okolnosti“ poput onih u glavnom postupku, obveza pružanja skrbi putnicima utvrđena u tim odredbama ograničena u vremenskom ili novčanom smislu, i ako nije, jesu li te odredbe tumačene na taj način nevaljane s obzirom na načela proporcionalnosti i nediskriminacije, načelo „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa” sadržano u Montrealskoj konvenciji ili članke 16. i 17. Povelje.
37 It should be noted that, in the case of cancellation of a flight on account of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, the European Union legislature sought to modify the obligations of air carriers laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 261/2004.
37 Valja napomenuti da je u slučaju otkazivanja leta zbog „izvanrednih okolnosti” zakonodavac Unije namjeravao urediti obveze zračnih prijevoznika predviđene u članku 5. stavku 1. Uredbe br. 261/2004.
38 Under recital 15 and Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, by way of derogation from the provisions of Article 5(1), the air carrier is thus exempted from its obligation to compensate passengers under Article 7 of that regulation if it can prove that the cancellation 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 (Nelson and Others, paragraph 39).
38 U skladu s uvodnom izjavom 15. i člankom 5. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 261/2004, odstupajući od odredaba članka 5. stavka 1., zračni prijevoznik se izuzima od obveze plaćanja odštete putnicima u skladu s člankom 7. te uredbe ako može dokazati da je otkazivanje uzrokovano izvanrednim okolnostima koje nisu mogle biti spriječene, čak i da su bile poduzete sve razumne mjere, to jest okolnostima koje su izvan stvarne kontrole zračnog prijevoznika (gore navedena presuda Nelson i dr., t. 39.).
39 In that regard, the Court has held that, in such circumstances, the air carrier is only released from its obligation to provide compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 and that, consequently, its obligation to provide care in accordance with Article 9 of that regulation remains (see, to that effect, Case C-294/10 Eglītis and Ratnieks [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 23 and 24).
39 U vezi s tim Sud je istaknuo da se u takvim okolnostima zračni prijevoznik oslobađa samo obveze plaćanja odštete u skladu s člankom 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 te da, stoga, ostaje njegova obveza pružanja skrbi u skladu s člankom 9. te uredbe (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 12. svibnja 2011., Eglītis i Ratnieks, C-294/10, Zb., str. I-3983., t. 23. i 24.).
41 It follows from Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 that all the obligations to provide care to passengers whose flight is cancelled are imposed, in their entirety, on the air carrier for the whole period during which the passengers concerned must await their re-routing. To that effect, it is clear from Article 9(1)(b) that hotel accommodation is to be offered free of charge by the air carrier during the ‘necessary’ period.
41 Iz članka 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 proizlazi da su obveze pružanja skrbi putnicima čiji je let otkazan u cijelosti na zračnom prijevozniku, za cjelokupno razdoblje tijekom kojeg dotični putnici moraju čekati na preusmjeravanje. U tom smislu iz članka 9. stavka 1. točke (b) proizlazi da zračni prijevoznik mora ponuditi besplatni hotelski smještaj tijekom razdoblja u kojem je to „potrebno”.
42 Moreover, any interpretation seeking the recognition of limits, whether temporal or monetary, on the obligation of the air carrier to provide care to passengers whose flight has been cancelled would have the effect of jeopardising the aims pursued by Regulation No 261/2004 recalled in paragraph 31 of this judgment, in that, beyond the limitation adopted, passengers would be deprived of all care and thus left to themselves. As the Advocate General noted in point 52 of his Opinion, the provision of care to such passengers is particularly important in the case of extraordinary circumstances which persist over a long time and it is precisely in situations where the waiting period occasioned by the cancellation of a flight is particularly lengthy that it is necessary to ensure that an air passenger whose flight has been cancelled can have access to essential goods and services throughout that period.
42 Osim toga, svako tumačenje kojim se žele priznati ograničenja, vremenska ili novčana, u vezi s obvezom zračnog prijevoznika da pruži skrb putnicima čiji je let otkazan, ugrozilo bi ciljeve Uredbe br. 261/2004 na koje je ukazano u točki 31. ove presude, budući da bi izvan usvojenih ograničenja, putnicima bila uskraćena sva skrb te bi tako bili prepušteni sami sebi. Kao što je nezavisni odvjetnik napomenuo u točki 52. svojeg mišljenja, pružanje skrbi takvim putnicima izuzetno je važno u slučaju izvanrednih okolnosti koje traju tijekom duljeg razdoblja i upravo je u situaciji kada je vrijeme čekanja uzrokovano otkazivanjem leta posebno dugo, potrebno osigurati da putnik u zračnom prometu čiji je let otkazan može tijekom cijelog tog razdoblja čekanja imati pristup osnovnim robama i uslugama.
44 However, it is necessary to ensure that the interpretation in the preceding paragraph does not conflict with the principles of proportionality, of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ referred to in the Montreal Convention and of non-discrimination, or with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter. Under a general principle of interpretation, a European Union measure must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity and in conformity with primary law as a whole (Case C-149/10 Chatzi [2010] ECR I-8489, paragraph 43).
44 Međutim, potrebno je osigurati da tumačenje u prethodnoj točki ne bude u suprotnosti s načelima proporcionalnosti, „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa“ iz Montrealske konvencije i nediskriminacije, ili s člancima 16. i 17. Povelje. Prema općem načelu tumačenja, akt Unije mora se tumačiti u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri tako da se ne dovede u pitanje njegova valjanost kao i u skladu s primarnim pravom kao cjelinom (presuda od 16. rujna 2010., Chatzi, C-149/10, Zb., str. I-8489., t. 43.).
52 As regards, second, the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ referred to in the last paragraph of the preamble to the Montreal Convention, suffice it to note that the standardised and immediate compensatory measures laid down by Regulation No 261/2004, which include the obligation to provide care to passengers whose flight has been cancelled, are not among those whose institution is governed by the Montreal Convention (see, to that effect, Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
52 Drugo, što se tiče načela „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa“ iz posljednje točke preambule Montrealske konvencije, dovoljno je napomenuti da se standardizirane i trenutačne mjere popravljanja štete utvrđene u Uredbi br. 261/2004, koje uključuju obvezu pružanja skrbi putnicima čiji su letovi bili otkazani, ne ubrajaju u one mjere čija se uspostava regulira Montrealskom konvencijom (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Wallentin-Hermann, t. 32. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
53 Therefore, there is no need to assess the validity of the aforesaid provisions in the light of the principle of an ‘equitable balance of interests’ referred to in that Convention.
53 Stoga nema potrebe za ocjenom valjanosti gore navedenih odredaba u odnosu na načelo „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa” iz te konvencije.
54 As regards, third, the general principle of non-discrimination or equal treatment, Ryanair claims that the obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide care in a situation such as that as issue in the main proceedings imposes obligations on air carriers which, in circumstances similar to those at issue in the main proceedings, do not fall upon other modes of transport governed by Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 14), Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 1) and Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 1), even though passengers stranded by widespread and prolonged disruption of transport find themselves in an identical situation whatever their mode of transport.
54 Treće, što se tiče općeg načela nediskriminacije ili jednakog postupanja, Ryanair tvrdi da obveza pružanja skrbi utvrđena u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 u situaciji poput one o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku nameće zračnim prijevoznicima obveze kojima, u okolnostima sličnim onima o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku, ne podliježu druge vrste prijevoza uređene Uredbom (EZ) br. 1371/2007 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. listopada 2007. o pravima i obvezama putnika u željezničkom prometu (SL L 315, str. 14.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 7., svezak 10., str. 143.), Uredbom (EU) br. 1177/2010 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 24. studenoga 2010. o pravima putnika kada putuju morem ili unutarnjim plovnim putovima i o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 2006/2004 (SL L 334, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 15., svezak 13., str. 142.) i Uredbom (EU) br. 181/2011 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 16. veljače 2011. o pravima putnika u autobusnom prijevozu i izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 2006/2004 (SL L 55, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 7., svezak 12., str. 237.), iako su putnici koji se nađu u opsežnom i dugotrajnom prekidu prijevoza u identičnoj situaciji bez obzira na njihov način prijevoza.
55 In that respect, it should be noted that the Court has already held in IATA and ELFAA, paragraphs 93 to 99, that Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 do not infringe the principle of equal treatment.
55 U tom smislu, valja napomenuti da je Sud već ocijenio u gore navedenoj presudi IATA i ELFAA, t. od 93. do 99., da članci od 5. do 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne krše načelo jednakog postupanja.
60 In that regard, it must be noted, first, that freedom to conduct a business and the right to property are not absolute rights but must be considered in relation to their social function (see, to that effect, Case C-544/10 Deutsches Weintor [2012] ECR I-0000, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).
60 U vezi s tim valja napomenuti, prvo, da sloboda poduzetništva i pravo vlasništva nisu apsolutni prerogativi, nego se moraju razmatrati s obzirom na njihovu funkciju u društvu (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 6. rujna 2012., Deutsches Weintor, C-544/10, t. 54. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
63 In this case, the referring court mentions Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter. However, it is also necessary to take account of Article 38 thereof which, like Article 169 TFEU, seeks to ensure a high level of protection for consumers, including air passengers, in European Union policies. As has been noted in paragraph 31 of this judgment, protection of those passengers is among the principal aims of Regulation No 261/2004.
63 U ovom predmetu, sud koji je uputio zahtjev spominje članke 16. i 17. Povelje. Međutim, treba također uzeti u obzir njezin članak 38. kojim se, kao i člankom 169. UFEU-a, želi u politikama Europske unije osigurati visoka razina zaštite za potrošače, uključujući putnike u zračnom prometu. Kako je navedeno u točki 31. ove presude, zaštita tih putnika je među glavnim ciljevima Uredbe br. 261/2004.
66 Consequently, the answer to the fourth and fifth questions is that Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ of a duration such as that in the main proceedings, the obligation to provide care to air passengers laid down in those provisions must be complied with, and the validity of those provisions is not affected.
66 Prema tome, na četvrto i peto pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 treba tumačiti tako da se u slučaju otkazivanja leta radi „izvanrednih okolnosti“ u trajanju poput onog u glavnom postupku, obveza pružanja skrbi putnicima utvrđena u tim odredbama mora ispuniti, bez utjecaja na valjanost tih odredaba.
67 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
67 Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka. Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu, koji nisu troškovi spomenutih stranaka, ne nadoknađuju se.