natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(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 [vremena dolaska predviđenog redom letenja]. […]
...’ 
[…]”
11 Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, entitled ‘Delay’, is worded as follows: 
11 Članak 6. Uredbe br. 261/2004, naslovljen „Kašnjenje leta”, propisuje:
12 Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, entitled ‘Right to compensation’, provides: 
12 Članak 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004, naslovljen „Pravo na odštetu”, glasi:
"(b) by three hours, in respect of all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 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; [za tri sata, u slučaju svih letova unutar Zajednice dužih od 1500 km kao i u pogledu svih ostalih letova dužine između 1500 km i 3500 km;] ili"
the operating air carrier may reduce the compensation provided for in paragraph 1 by 50 %. 
[stvarni] zračni prijevoznik može smanjiti visinu odštete predviđenu stavkom 1. za 50 %.
13 Article 8 of Regulation No 261/2004, entitled ‘Right to reimbursement or re-routing’, is worded as follows: 
13 Članak 8. Uredbe br. 261/2004, naslovljen „Pravo na vraćanje prevoznine ili preusmjeravanje”, propisuje:
‘1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between: 
1. Upućivanjem na ovaj članak, putnicima se nudi izbor između:
(a) – reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger’s original travel plan, together with, when relevant, 
(a) — nadoknade u roku od 7 dana, u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 3., cjelokupnog iznosa vrijednosti karte po cijeni po kojoj je kupljena, za dio ili dijelove putovanja koji nisu realizirani i za dio, ili dijelove putovanja koji su već ostvareni, ako let više [ne] služi svrsi prvotnog plana putovanja putnika, zajedno sa, kada je to primjereno,
14 Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, entitled ‘Right to care’, is worded as follows: 
14 Članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004, naslovljen „Pravo na skrb”, glasi:
‘1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge: 
„1. Pozivanjem na ovaj članak, putnici ostvaruju pravo na besplatne:
– where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary, or 
— kada je potrebno ostati jednu ili više noći, ili
"– where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary;" 
"— kada je potreban ostanak duži od onoga koji je putnik planirao;"
15 Article 13 of Regulation No 261/2004, entitled ‘Right of redress’, provides: 
15 Članak 13. Uredbe br. 261/2004, naslovljen „Pravo regresa”, propisuje:
‘In cases where an operating air carrier pays compensation or meets the other obligations incumbent on it under this Regulation, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting its right to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable. In particular, this Regulation shall in no way restrict the operating air carrier’s right to seek reimbursement from a tour operator or another person with whom the operating air carrier has a contract. Similarly, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting the right of a tour operator or a third party, other than a passenger, with whom an operating air carrier has a contract, to seek reimbursement or compensation from the operating air carrier in accordance with applicable relevant laws.’ 
„U slučajevima gdje stvarni zračni prijevoznik plaća odštetu ili izvršava druge obveze koje proizlaze iz ove Uredbe, niti jedna odredba iz ove Uredbe ne može se protumačiti na način koji bi ograničavao njegovo pravo da zatraži odštetu od bilo koje osobe, uključujući treću stranu u skladu s primjenljivim pravom. Posebno se ovom Uredbom, ni na koji način, ne ograničava pravo stvarnog zračnog prijevoznika da traži nadoknadu od tour operatora ili od druge osobe s kojom zračni prijevoznik ima ugovor. Sukladno tome, niti jedna odredba iz ove Uredbe ne može se protumačiti na način koji bi ograničavao prava tour operatora ili treće osobe, ako ta treća osoba nije putnik, a s kojom zračni prijevoznik ima ugovor, da potražuje nadoknadu ili odštetu od zračnog prijevoznika u skladu s relevantnim primjenljivim propisima.”
17 In accordance with the original planning, Mrs Folkerts’ flight was scheduled to depart from Bremen on 16 May 2006 at 6.30 am and arrive in Asunción, her final destination, the same day at 11.30 pm. 
17 U skladu s prvotnim planom, bilo je predviđeno da L.-T. Folkerts krene letom iz Bremena 16. svibnja 2006. u 6.30 i stigne u Asunción, koji je bio njezino krajnje odredište, istog dana u 23.30.
18 The departure of the flight from Bremen to Paris, operated by the company Air France, was delayed and the aircraft took off only shortly before 9.00 am, that is a delay of approximately two and a half hours beyond the scheduled departure time. Mrs Folkerts, who already had her boarding cards for the entire journey on departure from Bremen, did not reach Paris until after Air France’s aircraft scheduled for the connecting flight to São Paulo had already departed. Mrs Folkerts was re-booked by Air France on to a later flight to São Paulo. Because of her late arrival in São Paulo, Mrs Folkerts missed the connecting flight to Asunción originally scheduled. She therefore did not arrive in Asunción until 17 May 2006 at 10.30 am, that is 11 hours after the arrival time originally scheduled. 
18 Let Air Francea iz Bremena u Pariz kasnio je u odlasku i zrakoplov je uzletio tek nešto prije 9.00, što je kašnjenje od približno dva i pol sata u odnosu na planirano vrijeme odlaska. L.-T. Folkerts, koja je pri odlasku iz Bremena već imala svoje ukrcajne karte za cjelokupno putovanje, stigla je u Pariz tek kada je Air Franceov zrakoplov koji je bio planiran kao povezani let do São Paula već otišao. Društvo Air France izdalo je gospođi L.-T. Folkerts novu rezervaciju za kasniji let do São Paula. Zbog svog zakašnjelog dolaska u São Paulo, L.-T. Folkerts je propustila prvotno planirani povezani let za Asunción. Radi toga je stigla u Asunción tek 17. svibnja 2006. u 10.30, to jest jedanaest sati nakon prvotno planiranog vremena dolaska.
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 (njemački savezni sud).
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. 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). 
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. 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.
‘(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?
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?”
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 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. 
27 Iz članka 2. 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.
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. 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. 
30 Drugo, u drugim kontekstima, Uredbom br. 261/2004 uređuje se situacija u kojoj je došlo do kašnjenja pri dolasku na konačno odredište. 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). 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. 
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.). 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 I-0000, 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.).
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.
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, 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.).
49 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national 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. 
49 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.
31 January 2013 (*) 
31. siječnja 2013.*
(Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Obligation to provide assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Volcanic eruption leading to the closure of air space – Eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull) 
„Zračni promet – Uredba (EZ) br. 261/2004 – Pojam ,izvanredne okolnosti’ – Obveza pružanja pomoći putnicima u slučaju otkazivanja leta zbog ,izvanrednih okolnosti’ – Erupcija vulkana zbog koje je zatvoren zračni prostor – Erupcija islandskog vulkana Eyjafjallajökull”
In Case C-12/11, 
U predmetu C-12/11
Ryanair Ltd, 
Ryanair Ltd,
Advocate General: Y. Bot, 
nezavisnim odvjetnik: Y. Bot,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 9 February 2012, 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 9. veljače 2012.,
– Ms McDonagh, by J. Hennessy, Solicitor, 
– za D. McDonagh, J. Hennessy, solicitor,
– Ryanair Ltd, by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, M. Hayden, Senior Counsel, and R. Aylward, Barrister-at-Law, 
– za Ryanair Ltd, G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, M. Hayden, Senior Counsel, i R. Aylward, Barrister-at-Law,
– the German Government, by T. Henze and J. Kemper, acting as Agents, 
– za njemačku vladu, T. Henze i J. Kemper, u svojstvu agenata,
– the United Kingdom Government, by S. Ossowski, acting as Agent, 
– za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine, S. Ossowski, u svojstvu agenta,
– the European Parliament, by L.G. Knudsen and A. Troupiotis, acting as Agents, 
– za Europski parlament, L.G. Knudsen i A. Troupiotis, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Council of the European Union, by E. Karlsson and A. De Elera, acting as Agents, 
– za Vijeće Europske unije, E. Karlsson i A. De Elera, u svojstvu agenata,
– the European Commission, by K. Simonsson and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, 
– za Europsku komisiju, K. Simonsson i N. Yerrell, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 22 March 2012, 
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 22. ožujka 2012.,
2 The request has been made in proceedings between Ms McDonagh and Ryanair Ltd (‘Ryanair’) regarding the airline company’s refusal to give Ms McDonagh the care provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 after the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull had caused the cancellation of her flight and, more generally, closure of part of European airspace. 
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između D. McDonagh i društva Ryanair Ltd (u daljnjem tekstu: Ryanair) u vezi s odbijanjem tog zračnog prijevoznika da D. McDonagh pruži skrb predviđenu člankom 5. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Uredbe br. 261/2004 nakon što je erupcija islandskog vulkana Eyjafjallajökull uzrokovala otkazivanje njezinog leta i, šire, zatvaranje dijela europskog zračnog prostora.
"3 The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, was signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38; ‘the Montreal Convention’)." 
3 Europska zajednica je 9. prosinca 1999. potpisala Konvenciju o ujednačavanju određenih pravila u međunarodnom zračnom prijevozu sklopljenu u Montrealu 28. svibnja 1999., (u daljnjem tekstu: Montrealska konvencija) te je ona u njezino ime odobrena Odlukom Vijeća 2001/539/EZ od 5. travnja 2001. (SL L 194, str. 38.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 7., svezak 21., str. 5.).
‘Convinced that collective State action for further harmonisation and codification of certain rules governing international carriage by air through a new Convention is the most adequate means of achieving an equitable balance of interests …’ 
„Vjerujući da je zajedničko djelovanje država, s ciljem daljnjeg usklađivanja i kodifikacije određenih pravila koja uređuju međunarodni zračni prijevoz kroz novu Konvenciju najprikladniji način postizanja pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa […]”