natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘(1) Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general. 
„(1) Aktivnost Zajednice u području zračnog prijevoza usmjerena je, pored ostalih stvari, na osiguravanje visoke razine zaštite putnika. Uz to, u potpunosti bi trebalo voditi računa o obvezama zaštite potrošača općenito.
(3) While Council Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport [(OJ 1991 L 36, p. 5)] created basic protection for passengers, the number of passengers denied boarding against their will remains too high, as does that affected by cancellations without prior warning and that affected by long delays. 
(3) Dok je Uredbom Vijeća (EEZ) br. 295/91 od 4. veljače 1991. o utvrđivanju općih pravila za sustav odštete u slučaju uskraćivanja ukrcaja u redovnom zračnom prijevozu (SL L 36, str. 5.) propisana temeljna zaštita putnika, broj putnika kojima se uskraćuje ukrcaj protivno njihovoj volji ostaje i dalje previsok, baš kao i broj putnika oštećenih otkazivanjem leta bez prethodnog upozorenja i onih pogođenih dugim odgodama [kašnjenjima].
(4) The Community should therefore raise the standards of protection set by that Regulation both to strengthen the rights of passengers and to ensure that air carriers operate under harmonised conditions in a liberalised market.’ 
(4) Zajednica bi stoga trebala povisiti standarde zaštite propisane tom Uredbom, kako bi ojačala prava putnika i osigurala djelovanje zračnih prijevoznika sukladno ujednačenim uvjetima na liberaliziranom tržištu.”
4 According to Recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004: 
4 U skladu s uvodnom izjavom 15. Uredbe br. 261/2004:
‘Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.’ 
„Smatrat će se da postoje izvanredne okolnosti onda kad je utjecaj odluke, koju je donijela uprava zračnog prometa, u vezi s određenim zrakoplovom određenog dana dovela do dugog kašnjenja leta, kašnjenja leta preko noći, ili do otkazivanja jednog ili više letova tim zrakoplovom, iako su sve odgovarajuće mjere poduzete od strane dotičnog zračnog prijevoznika kako bi se izbjeglo kašnjenje ili otkazivanje letova.”
5 Article 2 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed ‘Definitions’, provides: 
5 Članak 2. Uredbe br. 261/2004, naslovljen „Definicije”, propisuje:
‘For the purposes of this Regulation: 
„Za potrebe ove Uredbe:
… 
…
(l) “cancellation” means the non-operation of a flight which was previously planned and on which at least one place was reserved.’ 
(l) ,otkazivanje’ znači otkazivanje leta koji je prethodno bio zakazan i na kojem je najmanje jedno mjesto bilo rezervirano.”
6 Article 5 of that regulation, headed ‘Cancellation’, states: 
6 Članak 5. navedene uredbe, naslovljen „Otkazivanje leta”, propisuje:
‘1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall: 
„1. U slučaju otkazivanja leta, dotični putnici:
(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival. 
iii. su obaviješteni o otkazivanju leta u roku od sedam dana prije vremena polaska predviđenog redom letenja i ponuđeno im je preusmjeravanje, čime im je omogućeno da otputuju ne više od sat vremena ranije od predviđenog vremena polaska i da stignu u mjesto odredišta unutar dva sata od planiranog vremena dolaska.
7 Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed ‘Delay’, is worded as follows: 
7 Članak 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004, naslovljen „Kašnjenje leta”, propisuje:
"(i) the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2); and" 
"i. pomoć propisanu u članku 9. stavku 1. točki (a) i članku 9. stavku 2.; i"
"(ii) when the reasonably expected time of departure is at least the day after the time of departure previously announced, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and" 
"ii. kada je razumno očekivano vrijeme polaska najmanje dan nakon prethodno najavljenog vremena polaska, pomoć propisanu u članku 9. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. stavku 1. točki (c); i"
8 Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, headed ‘Right to compensation’, provides: 
8 Članak 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004, naslovljen „Pravo na odštetu”, propisuje:
"(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less;" 
"(a) 250 EUR za sve letove dužine 1500 km ili kraće;"
"(b) EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres;" 
"(b) 400 EUR za sve letove unutar Zajednice, duže od 1500 km i za sve druge letove dužine između 1500 km i 3500 km;"
2. When passengers are offered re-routing to their final destination on an alternative flight pursuant to Article 8, the arrival time of which does not exceed the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked: 
2. Kada je putnicima ponuđeno preusmjeravanje do njihovog [krajnjeg] mjesta odredišta zamjenskim letom, sukladno članku 8., i kad na taj način ostvareno vrijeme dolaska ne premašuje prvotno vrijeme dolaska leta [predviđeno vrijeme dolaska prvotno rezerviranog leta]:
"(a) by two hours, in respect of all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less; or" 
"(a) za 2 sata, u vezi s letovima dugim 1500 km ili kraće; ili"
"(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1 500 kilometres and for all other flights between 1 500 and 3 500 kilometres; or" 
"(b) za 3 sata, u vezi sa svim letovima unutar Zajednice, dužih od 1500 km i u vezi sa svim ostalim letovima između 1500 km i 3500 km; ili"
(c) by four hours, in respect of all flights not falling under (a) or (b), 
(c) za 4 sata, u vezi sa svim letovima koji ne spadaju pod točke (a) ili (b),
9 Article 8(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 provides that where reference is made to Article 8, passengers are to be offered the choice between, under paragraph 1(a), reimbursement of the ticket and a return flight to the first point of departure or, under paragraph 1(b) and (c), re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination. 
9 Člankom 8. stavkom 1. Uredbe br. 261/2004 predviđa se da se upućivanjem na članak 8. putnicima nudi, sukladno stavku 1. točki (a), izbor između nadoknade iznosa vrijednosti karte zajedno s povratnim letom u prvu točku polazišta ili, sukladno stavku 1. točkama (b) i (c), preusmjeravanja po sukladnim uvjetima prijevoza do njihovog konačnog odredišta.
"10 Article 9(1) of that regulation, where reference is made to Article 9, passengers are to be offered free of charge, under Article 9(1)(a), meals and refreshments and, under Article 9(1)(b) and (c), hotel accommodation and transfer to the place of accommodation; in addition, under Article 9(2), they are to be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails." 
"10 U skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 1. navedene uredbe predviđa se da upućivanjem na članak 9. putnici, sukladno članku 9. stavku 1. točki (a), ostvaruju pravo na besplatne obroke i osvježavajuće napitke te, sukladno članku 9. stavku 1. točkama (b) i (c) na besplatan smještaj u hotelu i prijevoz do mjesta smještaja; osim toga, u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 2., putnici imaju pravo na dva besplatna telefonska poziva ili dvije besplatne poruke teleksom, telefaksom ili elektroničkom poštom]."
The disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
Glavni postupci i prethodna pitanja
Case C-402/07 
Predmet C-402/07
11 The Sturgeons booked return tickets with Condor from Frankfurt am Main (Germany) to Toronto (Canada). 
11 Obitelj Sturgeon rezervirala je kod društva Condor povratne karte za let od Frankfurta na Majni (Njemačka) do Toronta (Kanada).
12 The return flight from Toronto to Frankfurt was due to depart at 16.20 on 9 July 2005. Following check-in, passengers on that flight were informed that the flight was cancelled, as was indicated on the airport departures board. Their luggage was returned to them and they were then driven to a hotel where they spent the night. The following day, the passengers were checked in at another airline’s counter for a flight with the same number as that on their booking. Condor did not schedule another flight with the same number for the day concerned. The passengers were given different seats from those they had been allocated on the previous day. The booking was not converted into a booking for a flight scheduled by another airline. The flight concerned arrived in Frankfurt at around 07.00 on 11 July 2005, some 25 hours after its scheduled arrival time. 
12 Povratni let iz Toronta za Frankfurt bio je previđen za 9. srpnja 2005. u 16.20. Nakon prijave, putnici za taj let bili su obaviješteni da je let otkazan, kako je bilo navedeno na ploči na kojoj se u zračnoj luci prikazuju odlazni letovi. Vraćena im je prtljaga, a zatim su ih odvezli do hotela u kojem su prenoćili. Sljedećeg dana, putnici su se prijavili na šalteru drugog zračnog prijevoznika za let s istim brojem kao onaj na njihovoj rezervaciji. Condor za dotični dan nije predvidio drugi let s istim brojem. Putnici su dobili sjedala različita od onih koja su im bila dodijeljena prethodnog dana. Rezervacija nije bila promijenjena u rezervaciju za let drugog zračnog prijevoznika. Dotični let stigao je u Frankfurt 11. srpnja 2005. oko 07.00, što je približno 25 sati nakon predviđenog vremena dolaska.
13 The Sturgeons took the view that, in light of all the abovementioned circumstances, in particular the delay of more than 25 hours, the flight had been not delayed but cancelled. 
13 Obitelj Sturgeon smatrala je da s obzirom na sve gore navedene okolnosti, posebno s obzirom na zakašnjenje dulje od 25 sati, let nije kasnio nego je bio otkazan.
14 The Sturgeons brought an action against Condor before the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Local Court, Rüsselsheim) (Germany), claiming compensation of EUR 600 per person plus damages, since, in their view, the damage sustained was the result not of a flight delay but of a cancellation. 
14 Obitelj Sturgeon podnijela je tužbu protiv društva Condor pred Amtsgericht Rüsselsheimom (mjesni sud, Rüsselsheim) (Njemačka) zahtijevajući odštetu od 600 EUR po osobi i naknadu štete, jer prema njihovom mišljenju pretrpljena šteta nije bila posljedica kašnjenja, nego posljedica otkazivanja leta.
15 Condor contended that the action as framed should be dismissed on the ground that the flight in question was delayed and not cancelled. Prior to the proceedings before the national court, Condor claimed that the flight had been delayed as the result of a hurricane in the Caribbean but during the proceedings it attributed the delay to technical faults on the plane and illness among the crew. 
15 Condor je tvrdio da tužbu kako je sastavljena treba odbiti, jer se radilo o kašnjenju dotičnog leta, a ne o njegovom otkazivanju. Prije postupka pred nacionalnim sudom, Condor je tvrdio da je do kašnjenja leta došlo radi uragana u području Kariba, ali tijekom postupka kašnjenje je pripisao tehničkim greškama na zrakoplovu i bolesti članova posade.
16 The Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim concluded that the flight had been delayed not cancelled and, consequently, dismissed the Sturgeons’ claim for compensation. The Sturgeons appealed to the Landgericht Darmstadt (Regional Court, Darmstadt) which upheld the decision of the lower court. 
16 Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim je zaključio da je let kasnio, a ne da je bio otkazan pa je stoga odbio odštetni zahtjev obitelji Sturgeon. Obitelj Sturgeon je podnijela žalbu Landgericht Darmstadtu (regionalni sud, Darmstadt) koji je potvrdio odluku nižeg suda.
17 The Sturgeons then appealed on a point of law (‘Revision’) to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice). 
17 Obitelj Sturgeon je tada podnijela tužbu za „reviziju” Bundesgerichtshofu.
18 Taking the view that the outcome of the appeal depended on the interpretation of Articles 2(l) and 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
18 Smatrajući da ishod tužbe ovisi o tumačenju članka 2. točke (l) i članka 5. stavka 1. točke (c) Uredbe br. 261/2004, Bundesgerichtshof je odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu postaviti sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘1. Is it decisive for the interpretation of the term “cancellation” whether the original flight planning is abandoned, with the result that a delay, regardless of how long, does not constitute a cancellation if the air carrier does not actually abandon the planning for the original flight? 
„1. Je li za tumačenje pojma „otkazivanje” odlučujuće to je li se od prvotno planiranog leta odustalo, što bi značilo da kašnjenje, bez obzira na trajanje, ne predstavlja otkazivanje ako zračni prijevoznik uistinu ne odustane od prvotno planiranog leta?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: in what circumstances is a delay of the planned flight no longer to be regarded as a delay but as a cancellation? Is the answer to this question dependent on the length of the delay?’ 
2. U slučaju negativnog odgovora na prvo pitanje: u kojim se okolnostima kašnjenje planiranog leta više ne smatra kašnjenjem nego otkazivanjem? Ovisi li odgovor na ovo pitanje o trajanju kašnjenja?”
Case C-432/07 
Predmet C-432/07
19 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz booked return tickets with Air France from Vienna (Austria) to Mexico City (Mexico) via Paris (France). 
19 S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz rezervirali su kod društva Air France povratne karte za let od Beča (Austrija) do Mexico D. F.-a (Meksiko) preko Pariza (Francuska).
20 The Mexico City-Paris flight which Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz were due to take was scheduled to depart at 21.30 on 7 March 2005. When they came to check in, they were immediately informed, without the check-in taking place, that their flight was cancelled. The cancellation resulted from a change in the flight planning between Mexico City and Paris, which arose because of a technical breakdown on the aircraft due to fly from Paris to Mexico City and on account of the need to observe the rest period prescribed by law for the crew. 
20 Let Mexico D. F. – Pariz kojim su S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz trebali putovati, bio je planiran redom letenja za 7. ožujka 2005. u 21.30. Kada su se došli prijaviti za let, bili su odmah, bez obavljanja prijave, obaviješteni da je njihov let otkazan. Do otkazivanja leta došlo je zbog promjene planiranog leta između Mexico D. F.-a i Pariza zbog tehničkog kvara na zrakoplovu koji je trebao letjeti iz Pariza u Mexico D. F. i radi potrebe poštovanja zakonom propisanog vremena odmora za posadu.
21 In order to get back earlier, Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz accepted Air France’s offer of seats on a flight operated by Continental Airlines, which was scheduled to leave the following day, 8 March 2005, at 12.20. Their tickets were first cancelled and then new tickets were issued to them at the Continental Airlines counter. 
21 Kako bi se vratili ranije, S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz prihvatili su ponudu društva Air France za sjedala na letu zračnog prijevoznika Continental Airlines, čiji je polazak bio predviđen sljedećeg dana, 8. ožujka 2005. u 12.20. Njihove su karte prvo bile poništene, a zatim su im izdane nove karte na šalteru zračnog prijevoznika Continental Airlines.
22 The other passengers on the Mexico City-Paris flight, who did not take the Continental Airlines flight, left Mexico City, with a number of additional passengers, on 8 March 2005 at 19.35. That flight, whose original number was followed by the letter ‘A’, was operated in addition to the regular flight scheduled by Air France on the same day. 
22 Ostali putnici na letu Mexico D. F. – Pariz, koji nisu iskoristili mogućnost leta zračnim prijevoznikom Continental Airlines, napustili su Mexico D. F., zajedno s određenim brojem dodatnih putnika, 8. ožujka 2005. u 19.35. Taj let, čijem je prvotnom broju dodano slovo „A“, bio je dodatni let uz redovito planirani let društva Air France tog istog dana.
23 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz arrived in Vienna almost 22 hours after the scheduled arrival time. 
23 S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz stigli su u Beč gotovo 22 sata nakon predviđenog vremena dolaska.
24 Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz brought an action against Air France before the Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (District Commercial Court, Vienna) (Austria), claiming EUR 600 compensation per person for cancellation of their flight, on the basis of Articles 5 and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004. That court dismissed their claim on the ground that, despite the evident flight delay, Regulation No 261/2004 did not support the conclusion that there was a flight cancellation. Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz appealed against that decision to the Handelsgericht Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna). 
24 S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz podnijeli su tužbu protiv društva Air France pred Bezirksgericht für Handelssachen Wien (Austrija) zahtijevajući, na temelju članka 5. i članka 7. stavka 1. točke (c) Uredbe br. 261/2004, odštetu od 600 EUR po osobi radi otkazivanja njihovog leta. Navedeni sud je odbio njihov zahtjev uz obrazloženje da se unatoč nespornom kašnjenju leta, na temelju Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne može zaključiti da se radilo o otkazivanju leta. S. Böck i C. Lepuschitz podnijeli su žalbu protiv te odluke pred Handelsgericht Wien.
25 In those circumstances, the Handelsgericht Wien decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
25 U tim je okolnostima Handelsgericht Wien odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu postaviti sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘1. Must Article 5, read in conjunction with Articles 2(l) and 6, of Regulation … No 261/2004 …, be interpreted as meaning that a 22-hour delay in the time of departure constitutes a “delay” within the meaning of Article 6? 
„1. Treba li članak 5. u vezi s člankom 2. točkom (l) i člankom 6. Uredbe […] br. 261/2004 […] tumačiti tako da 22-satno kašnjenje u odlasku predstavlja ,kašnjenje’ u smislu članka 6.?
2. Must Article 2(l) of Regulation … No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that instances in which passengers are transported significantly later (22 hours later) on a flight operating under a longer flight number (original flight number supplemented by an “A”) and carrying only an – albeit large – proportion of the passengers booked on the initial flight, but also additional passengers not booked on the initial flight, constitute “cancellations” rather than “delays”? 
2. Treba li članak 2. točku (l) Uredbe […] br. 261/2004 tumačiti tako da slučajevi u kojima se putnici prevezu znatno kasnije (22 sata kasnije) letom koji se izvodi pod duljim imenom leta (prvotni broj leta dopunjen je slovom ,A’ ) i kojim se prevozi samo dio – iako veliki dio – putnika koji su imali rezervaciju za prvotni let, ali također i dodatni putnici koji nisu imali rezervaciju za prvotni let, predstavljaju ,otkazivanja’ a ne ,kašnjenja’?
If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative: 
U slučaju potvrdnog odgovora na drugo pitanje:
3. Must Article 5(3) of Regulation … No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that technical problems with a plane and the resulting changes to the flight schedule represent extraordinary circumstances (which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken)?’ 
3. Treba li članak 5. stavak 3. Uredbe […] br. 261/2004 tumačiti tako da tehnički problemi sa zrakoplovom i posljedične promjene plana letenja predstavljaju izvanredne okolnosti (koje se ne bi mogle izbjeći čak i da su bile poduzete sve razumne mjere)?”
26 By order of the President of the Court of 19 October 2007, Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and of the judgment. 
26 Rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 19. listopada 2007., predmeti C-402/07 i C-432/07 spojeni su u svrhu pisanog i usmenog dijela postupka kao i donošenja presude.
27 Before the national courts, the applicants in the main actions claim from Condor and Air France respectively the compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 on the ground that with those airlines they reached their airports of destination, in the first case, 25 and, in the second case, 22 hours after the scheduled arrival times. Condor and Air France assert that the applicants are not entitled to any compensation, since the flights concerned were not cancelled but delayed and Regulation No 261/2004 provides for a right to compensation only in the case of flight cancellation. Furthermore, the airlines maintain that the late arrival of the flights was attributable to technical faults on the aircraft, which are covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, and that they are thus released from the obligation to pay compensation. 
27 Pred nacionalnim sudovima, tužitelji u glavnim postupcima zahtijevaju od društava Condor i Air France odštetu predviđenu u članku 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 uz obrazloženje da su s tim zračnim prijevoznicima stigli u svoje odredišne zračne luke, u prvom slučaju, 25 sati i, u drugom slučaju, 22 sata nakon planiranog vremena dolaska. Condor i Air France tvrde da tužitelji nemaju pravo ni na kakvu odštetu, budući da dotični letovi nisu bili otkazani nego su kasnili, a Uredbom br. 261/2004 predviđa se pravo na odštetu samo u slučaju otkazivanja leta. Osim toga, ovi zračni prijevoznici smatraju da se zakašnjeli dolazak letova može pripisati tehničkim greškama na zrakoplovu, koje su obuhvaćene pojmom „izvanredne okolnosti“ u smislu članka 5. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 261/2004 te da su stoga oslobođeni obveze plaćanja odštete.
28 In those circumstances, in order to give the national courts a useful answer, the questions referred should be understood as seeking, in essence, to ascertain: 
28 U tim okolnostima, kako bi se nacionalnim sudovima dali korisni odgovori, prethodna pitanja treba shvatiti tako da se njima u biti traži utvrđivanje:
"– whether a flight delay must be regarded as a flight cancellation for the purposes of Articles 2(l) and 5 of Regulation No 261/2004 where the delay is long;" 
"treba li kašnjenje leta smatrati otkazom leta za potrebe članka 2. točke (l) i članka 5. Uredbe br. 261/2004, kada je kašnjenje dugotrajno;"
– whether Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may, for the purpose of the application of the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of that regulation, be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled, and 
treba li članke 5., 6. i 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 tumačiti tako da znače da se prema putnicima čiji letovi kasne može, za potrebe primjene prava na odštetu utvrđenog u članku 7. te Uredbe, postupati kao prema putnicima čiji su letovi otkazani, i
– whether a technical problem in an aircraft is covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004. 
je li tehnički problem na zrakoplovu obuhvaćen pojmom „izvanredne okolnosti” za potrebe članka 5. stavka 3. Uredbe br. 261/2004.
The first part of the questions referred, concerning the concept of delay 
Prvi dio prethodnih pitanja, koji se odnosi na pojam kašnjenja
29 Regulation No 261/2004 does not contain a definition of ‘flight delay’. That concept may, however, be clarified in the light of the context in which it occurs. 
29 Uredba br. 261/2004 ne sadržava definiciju pojma „kašnjenje leta” Taj se pojam, međutim, može pojasniti s obzirom na kontekst u kojem se pojavljuje.