natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
20 Air France then brought an appeal on a point of law before the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice). 
20 Društvo Air France je potom podnijelo zahtjev za reviziju („Revision") Bundesgerichtshofu (Savezni vrhovni sud).
21 The Bundesgerichtshof considers that the outcome of that action depends on whether Mrs Folkerts is entitled to compensation from Air France pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004. 
21 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev smatra da ishod tog postupka ovisi o tome ima li L.-T. Folkerts pravo na odštetu od društva Air France na temelju članka 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004.
22 The Bundesgerichtshof takes the view that Mrs Folkerts is entitled to compensation in the amount of EUR 600 only if the case-law of the Court of Justice (Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others [2009] ECR I-10923 - according to which passengers have the right to compensation under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 also in the event of long delay - is also applicable to cases where, although there was not yet any delay beyond the scheduled departure within the terms of Article 6(1) of that regulation, the final destination was nonetheless reached three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled. 
22 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev smatra da L.-T. Folkerts ima pravo na odštetu u iznosu od 600 EUR samo ako se sudska praksa Suda (presuda od 19. studenoga 2009., Sturgeon i dr., spojeni predmeti C-402/07 i C-432/07, Zb., str. I-10923.) - prema kojoj putnici imaju pravo na odštetu temeljem članka 7. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 261/2004 i u slučajevima dugog kašnjenja - primjenjuje također na slučajeve u kojima se, iako nije bilo kašnjenja u odnosu na planirano vrijeme odlaska u smislu članka 6. stavka 1. navedene uredbe, na konačno odredište unatoč tome stiglo tri sata ili više nakon prvotno planiranog vremena dolaska.
23 Therefore, in the Bundesgerichtshof's view, the question of whether the right to compensation advanced by Mrs Folkerts is well founded depends on whether Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 may be relied on even where there is no delay within the terms of Article 6(1) of that regulation. 
23 Stoga po mišljenju suda koji je uputio zahtjev pitanje je li pravo na odštetu koju je zatražila L.-T. Folkerts utemeljeno ovisi o tome može li se članak 7. stavak 1. Uredbe br. 261/82004 primijeniti čak i u slučaju kada nema kašnjenja u smislu članka 6. stavka 1. navedene uredbe.
The Bundesgerichtshof takes the view that it is not clear from the grounds of the judgment in Sturgeon and Others whether, for the purpose of entitlement to compensation under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, the length of the delay in reaching the final destination alone is determinant or whether entitlement to compensation for such a delay additionally requires that the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of that regulation be met, that is to say, that the departure of the flight in question was already delayed beyond the limits set out in Article 6(1). 
Sud koji je uputio zahtjev smatra da, u smislu prava na odštetu u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 1. Uredbe br. 261/2004, iz obrazloženja presude u predmetu Sturgeon i dr. nije jasno, je li odlučujuća sama duljina kašnjenja pri dolasku na konačno odredište ili se za pravo na odštetu za takvo kašnjenje dodatno zahtijeva da budu ispunjeni uvjeti navedeni u članku 6. stavku 1. te uredbe, to jest, da je odlazak dotičnog leta već kasnio u odnosu na granice navedene u članku 6. stavku 1.
24 In those circumstances the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
24 U tim je okolnostima sud koji je uputio zahtjev odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu postaviti sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`(1) Does a passenger have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 in the case where departure of his flight was delayed for a period which is below the limits specified in Article 6(1) of that regulation, but arrival at the final destination was at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time? 
„1. Ima li putnik pravo na odštetu u skladu s člankom 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 u slučaju klada je odlazak njegovog leta kasnio manje od graničnih vrijednosti navedenih u članku 6. stavku 1. navedene Uredbe, ali je dolazak na konačno odredište kasnio najmanje tri sata u odnosu na planirano vrijeme dolaska?
(2) If the first question is answered in the negative: 
2. Ako bi na prvo pitanje valjalo odgovoriti niječno:
For the purpose of determining whether there was a delay, within the terms of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, in the case of a flight consisting of several stages, should reference be made to the individual stages or to the distance to the final destination?' 
Treba li za potrebe utvrđivanja, je li u slučaju leta koji se sastoji od nekoliko faza postojalo kašnjenje u smislu članka 6. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 261/2004, uzeti u obzir pojedinačne faze ili udaljenost do konačnog odredišta?"
25 By its first question the Bundesgerichtshof asks, in essence, whether Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is payable, on the basis of that article, to a passenger on connecting flights who has been delayed at departure for a period below the limits specified in Article 6 of that regulation, but has arrived at his final destination at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time. 
25 Svojim prvim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članak 7. Uredbe 261/2004 tumačiti tako da se odšteta temeljem tog članka isplaćuje putniku koji putuje povezanim letovima i koji je u polasku kasnio manje od graničnih vrijednosti navedenih u članku 6. te uredbe, ali je na svoje konačno odredište stigao najmanje tri sata kasnije od planiranog vremena dolaska.
26 In the first place, it must be recalled that, as is apparent from Article 1(1) thereof, the purpose of Regulation No 261/2004 is to grant minimum rights to air passengers when faced with three different types of situation, namely, when they are denied boarding against their will, when their flights are cancelled and, lastly, when their flights are delayed. 
26 Na prvom mjestu, valja podsjetiti da je svrha Uredbe br. 261/2004, kako proizlazi iz njezinog članka 1. stavka 1., davanje minimalnih prava zrakoplovnim putnicima kada se nađu u tri različite vrste situacija, to jest, kada im se uskrati ukrcaj protivno njihovoj volji, kada su njihovi letovi otkazani i, konačno, kada njihovi letovi kasne. 27 Iz članka 2.
27 It is apparent from Article 2 of Regulation No 261/2004, setting out definitions for the purposes of that regulation, that, unlike denied boarding and flight cancellation, flight delay is not itself defined in that article. 
Uredbe br. 261/2004, u kojem se navode definicije za potrebe te Uredbe, vidljivo je da, za razliku od uskraćenog ukrcaja i otkazivanja leta, kašnjenje leta kao takvo u tom članku nije definirano.
28 In addition, it should be noted that Regulation No 261/2004 contemplates two different types of flight delay. 
28 Osim toga, valja napomenuti da se u Uredbi br. 261/2004 razmatraju dvije različite vrste kašnjenja leta.
29 First, in some contexts, such as the delay provided for in Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, that regulation refers only to a flight's being delayed beyond its scheduled departure time. 
29 Prvo, u nekim kontekstima, poput kašnjenja predviđenog člankom 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004, ta se uredba odnosi samo na let koji kasni u odnosu na njegovo planirano vrijeme odlaska.
30 Second, in other contexts, Regulation No 261/2004 deals with the situation where arrival at the final destination has been delayed. 
30 Drugo, u drugim kontekstima, Uredbom br. 261/2004 uređuje se situacija u kojoj je došlo do kašnjenja pri dolasku na konačno odredište.
Thus, in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004, the European Union legislature draws legal consequences from the fact that the passengers whose flights have been cancelled and who are offered re-routing by an air carrier reach their final destination a certain amount of time after the cancelled flight's scheduled time of arrival. 
Tako člankom 5. stavkom 1. točkom (c) podtočkom iii. Uredbe br. 261/2004 zakonodavac Europske unije predviđa pravne posljedice temeljem činjenice da putnici čiji su letovi otkazani i kojima je zračni prijevoznik ponudio preusmjeravanje stižu na svoje konačno odredište određeno vrijeme nakon planiranog vremena dolaska otkazanog leta.
31 In that connection, it should be noted that the reference, in Regulation No 261/2004, to different types of delay is compatible with Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, that convention being an integral part of the EU legal order (see Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403, paragraph 36, and Case C-63/09 Walz [2010] ECR I-4239, paragraphs 19 and 20). 
31 U vezi s tim valja napomenuti da je upućivanje na različite vrste kašnjenja u Uredbi br. 261/2004 u skladu s člankom 19. Montrealske konvencije, koja je sastavni dio pravnog poretka Unije (vidjeti presude od 10. siječnja 2006., IATA i ELFAA, C-344/04, Zb., str. I-403., t. 36. i od 6. svibnja 2010., Walz, C-63/09, Zb., str. I-4239., t. 19. i 20.).
Article 19 of the Montreal Convention refers to the concept of `delay in the carriage by air of passengers', without specifying at which stage of such carriage the delay in question must occur. 
Članak 19. Montrealske konvencije upućuje na pojam „kašnjenje u zračnom prijevozu putnika" ne određujući u kojoj se fazi takvog prijevoza dotično kašnjenje mora dogoditi.
32 In the second place, it must be noted that the Court has held that when their flights are subject to long delay, that is delay equal to or in excess of three hours, passengers of such flights are entitled to compensation on the basis of Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, like those passengers whose original flights have been cancelled and whom an air carrier is not able to offer re-routing in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004, given that they suffer an irreversible loss of time and, hence, a comparable inconvenience (see Sturgeon and Others, paragraphs 60 and 61, and Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10 Nelson and Others [2012] ECR, paragraphs 34 and 40). 
32 Na drugom mjestu, valja napomenuti da je Sud već presudio da kada im letovi dugo kasne, to jest kada kasne tri sata ili više, putnici takvih letova imaju pravo na odštetu na temelju članka 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004, isto kao i putnici čiji su prvotni letovi otkazani i kojima zračni prijevoznik ne može ponuditi preusmjeravanje u skladu s uvjetima utvrđenim u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (c) podtočki iii. Uredbe br. 261/2004, s obzirom na to da su pretrpjeli nenadomjestiv gubitak vremena i, stoga, usporedivu neugodnost (vidjeti gore navedene presude Sturgeon i dr., t. 60. i 61. i od 23. listopada 2012., Nelson i dr., spojeni predmeti C-581/10 i C-629/10, Zb., t. 34. i 40.).
33 Since that inconvenience materialises, with regard to delayed flights, on arrival at the final destination, the Court has held that a delay must be assessed, for the purposes of the compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, in relation to the scheduled arrival time at that destination (see Sturgeon and Others, paragraph 61, and Nelson and Others, paragraph 40). 
33 Kako do tih neugodnosti u vezi s letovima koji kasne dolazi pri dolasku na konačno odredište, Sud je utvrdio da se za potrebe odštete predviđene u članku 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004, kašnjenje mora ocijeniti u odnosu na planirano vrijeme dolaska na to odredište (vidjeti gore navedene presude Sturgeon i dr., t. 61. i Nelson i dr., t. 40.).
34 The concept of `final destination' is defined in Article 2(h) of Regulation No 261/2004 as being the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight. 
34 U članku 2. točki (h) Uredbe br. 261/2004 pojam „konačno odredište" definiran je kao odredište navedeno na karti predočenoj pri prijavi na let ili, u slučaju izravnih povezanih letova, odredište posljednjeg leta.
35 It follows that, in the case of directly connecting flights, it is only the delay beyond the scheduled time of arrival at the final destination, understood as the destination of the last flight taken by the passenger concerned, which is relevant for the purposes of the fixed compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004. 
35 Iz navedenog proizlazi da je u slučaju izravnih povezanih letova, za potrebe fiksne odštete iz članka 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004, relevantno samo kašnjenje u odnosu na planirano vrijeme dolaska na konačno odredište, pri čemu se podrazumijeva da je konačno odredište, odredište posljednjeg leta kojim dotični putnik putuje.
36 In the third place, Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, which refers to the delay to a flight beyond its scheduled time of departure, seeks, according to its own terms, only to establish the conditions giving entitlement to the measures of assistance and care provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of that regulation respectively. 
36 Na trećem mjestu, člankom 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 koji se odnosi na kašnjenje leta u odnosu na njegovo planirano vrijeme odlaska, ima za cilj, u skladu s uvjetima navedenim u tom članku, samo utvrditi uvjete na temelju kojih se stječe pravo na mjere pomoći i skrbi predviđene u člancima 8. i 9. navedene uredbe.
37 If follows that the fixed compensation to which a passenger is entitled under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, when his flight reaches the final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time, is not dependent on the conditions laid down in Article 6 of that regulation being met. 
37 Iz navedenog proizlazi da fiksna odšteta na koju putnik ima pravo temeljem članka 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 kada njegov let stigne na konačno odredište tri sata ili više nakon planiranog vremena dolaska, ne ovisi o ispunjavanju uvjeta utvrđenih u članku 6. te uredbe.
38 Accordingly, the fact that a flight such as that at issue in the main proceedings has not been delayed, as regards the scheduled departure time, beyond the limits set out in Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, cannot affect the obligation on air carriers to compensate the passengers of such a flight, provided that the arrival of that flight at the final destination has been delayed by three hours or more. 
38 Stoga činjenica da let o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku nije kasnio u odnosu na planirano vrijeme odlaska više od graničnih vrijednosti navedenih u članku 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne može utjecati na obvezu zračnih prijevoznika da putnicima takvog leta plate odštetu, ako je let pri dolasku na konačno odredište kasnio tri sata ili više.
39 The opposite approach would constitute an unjustified difference in treatment, inasmuch as it would effectively treat passengers of flights arriving at their final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time differently depending on whether their flights were delayed beyond the scheduled departure time by more than the limits set out in Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, even though their inconvenience linked to an irreversible loss of time is identical. 
39 Suprotan bi pristup predstavljao neutemeljenu razliku u postupanju, budući da bi se njime prema putnicima letova koji stignu na svoje krajnje odredište tri sata ili više nakon planiranog vremena dolaska postupalo različito, ovisno o tome jesu li njihovi letovi kasnili u odnosu na planirano vrijeme odlaska više od graničnih vrijednosti navedenih u članku 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004, iako je neugodnost povezana s nenadoknadivim gubitkom vremena jednaka.
40 In the fourth place, at the hearing certain statistical data were referred to, in particular by the European Commission, concerning, first, the substantial volume of connecting fights transporting passengers through European airspace and, second, the recurrent nature of delays of at least three hours in arriving at the final destination affecting such flights, attributable to the connections missed by the passengers concerned. 
40 Kao četvrto, na raspravi su izneseni određeni statistički podaci, posebno od strane Europske komisije, prvo, o znatnom broju povezanih letova u putničkom prijevozu u europskom zračnom prostoru i, drugo, o učestalosti kašnjenja od tri sata ili više pri dolasku na konačno odredište koja se događaju kod takvih letova, što se pripisuje vezama koje su dotični putnici propustili.
41 In that regard, it is true that the obligation to pay compensation to the passengers of the flights in question in the fixed amounts laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 entails certain financial consequences for air carriers (see, to that effect, Nelson and Others, paragraph 76). 
41 U vezi s tim točno je da obveza plaćanja odštete putnicima dotičnih letova u fiksnim iznosima utvrđenim u članku 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 podrazumijeva određene financijske posljedice za zračne prijevoznike (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Nelson i dr., t. 76.).
42 However, it must be emphasised, first, that those financial consequences cannot be considered disproportionate to the aim of ensuring a high level of protection for air passengers (Nelson and Others, paragraph 76) and, second, that the real extent of those consequences is likely to be mitigated in the light of the three factors set out below. 
42 Međutim, valja naglasiti, prvo, da se te financijske posljedice ne mogu smatrati neproporcionalnima cilju osiguravanja visoke razine zaštite zrakoplovnih putnika (gore navedena presuda Nelson i dr., t. 76.) i, drugo, da se stvarni raspon tih posljedica može ublažiti s obzirom na tri niže navedena elementa.
43 First of all, it should be noted 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, that is, circumstances which are beyond the air carrier's actual control (Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann [2008] ECR I-11061 [HYPERLINK: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/query.html?DN=62007C?0549&locale=EN], paragraph 34, and Nelson and Others, paragraph 79). 
43 Najprije valja napomenuti da zračni prijevoznici nisu obvezni platiti odštetu ako mogu dokazati da je otkazivanje ili dugo kašnjenje leta 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 (presuda od 22. prosinca 2008., Wallentin-Hermann, C-549/07, Zb., str. I-11061., t. 34. i gore navedena presuda Nelson i dr., t. 79.).
44 Next, it must be noted that 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 Regulation No 261/2004 provides (Nelson and Others, paragraph 80). 
44 Potom valja napomenuti da se ispunjavanjem obveza u skladu s Uredbom br. 261/2004 ne dovode u pitanje prava zračnih prijevoznika da, kako je predviđeno člankom 13. Uredbe br. 261/2004, traže odštetu od bilo koje osobe koja je uzrokovala kašnjenje, uključujući treće strane (gore navedena presuda Nelson i dr., t. 80.).
45 In addition, the amount of compensation, fixed at EUR 250, 400 and 600 depending on the distance of the flights concerned, may still 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 subparagraphs (a) or (b) of Article 7(2) - less than four hours (Sturgeon and Others, paragraph 63, and Nelson and Others, paragraph 78). 
45 Osim toga, iznos odštete od 250, 400 i 600 EUR ovisno o udaljenosti dotičnog leta može se također umanjiti za 50 % u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 2. točkom (c) Uredbe br. 261/2004 ako je kašnjenje - u slučaju leta koji nije obuhvaćen točkama (a) ili (b) članka 7. stavka 2. - kraće od četiri sata (gore navedene presude Sturgeon i dr., t. 63. i Nelson i dr., t. 78.).
46 Lastly, in any event, the case-law shows that the importance of the objective of consumer protection, which therefore includes the protection of air passengers, may justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain economic operators (Nelson and Others, paragraph 81, and case-law cited). 
46 Konačno i u svakom slučaju iz sudske prakse proizlazi da važnost cilja zaštite potrošača, koja dakle uključuje i zaštitu zrakoplovnih putnika, može opravdati čak i znatne negativne ekonomske posljedice za neke gospodarske subjekte (gore navedena presuda Nelson i dr., t. 81., i navedena sudska praksa).
47 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is that Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is payable, on the basis of that article, to a passenger on directly connecting flights who has been delayed at departure for a period below the limits specified in Article 6 of that regulation, but has arrived at his final destination at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time, given that the compensation in question is not conditional upon there having been a delay at departure and, thus, upon the conditions set out in Article 6 having been met. 
47 Slijedom navedenog, na prvo prethodno pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 treba tumačiti tako da se odšteta na temelju tog članka isplaćuje putniku koji putuje izravnim povezanim letovima i koji je u polasku kasnio manje vremena od graničnih vrijednosti navedenih u članku 6. te uredbe, ali je na svoje konačno odredište stigao najmanje tri sata kasnije od planiranog vremena dolaska, s obzirom na to da predmetna odšteta nije uvjetovana postojanjem kašnjenja u polasku pa prema tome ni ispunjavanjem uvjeta iz članka 6.
48 In the light of the affirmative answer given to the first question, there is no need to answer the second question. 
48 S obzirom da je na prvo pitanje dan potvrdan odgovor, na drugo pitanje nije potrebno odgovoriti.
Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is payable, on the basis of that article, to a passenger on directly connecting flights who has been delayed at departure for a period below the limits specified in Article 6 of that regulation, but has arrived at the final destination at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time, given that the compensation in question is not conditional upon there having been a delay at departure and, thus, upon the conditions set out in Article 6 having been met. 
Članak 7. Uredbe (EZ) br. 261/2004 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 11. veljače 2004. o utvrđivanju općih pravila odštete i pomoći putnicima u slučaju uskraćenog ukrcaja i otkazivanja ili dužeg kašnjenja leta u polasku te o stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe (EEZ) br. 295/91 treba tumačiti tako da se odšteta na temelju tog članka isplaćuje putniku koji putuje izravnim povezanim letovima i koji je pri polasku kasnio manje vremena od graničnih vrijednosti navedenih u članku 6. te uredbe, ali je na svoje konačno odredište stigao najmanje tri sata kasnije od planiranog vremena dolaska, s obzirom na to da predmetna odšteta nije uvjetovana postojanjem kašnjenja u polasku pa prema tome ni ispunjavanjem uvjeta iz članka 6.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 
PRESUDA SUDA (treće vijeće)