natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
31 Article 2(2) of that regulation states
31 alski konvenciji, za določitev obsega Uredbe �t.
Montreal Convention in order to define the scope of Regulation No 261/2004 in a way that is clearly at variance with its text and its legislative history.
261/2004 na način, ki se jasno razlikuje od njenega besedila in zakonodajne zgodovine.
in terms that concepts contained but not defined therein are equivalent to those used in the convention.
V členu 2(2) Uredbe je navedeno, da pojmi, ki so v njej vsebovani, vendar niso opredeljeni, ustrezajo pojmom, uporabljenim v Konvenciji.
That would contradict the express aim of the regulation, which is to ensure a high level of passenger protection.
To bi bilo v nasprotju z izrecnim ciljem Uredbe, ki je zagotovitev visoke ravni varstva potnikov.
I agree, moreover, with Emirates, Poland and Sweden in particular that there are clear differences between the Montreal Convention and Regulation No 261/2004.
Poleg tega se strinjam z Emirates, Poljsko in Švedsko zlasti glede tega, da obstajajo jasne razlike med Montrealsko konvencijo in Uredbo �t. 261/2004.
Above all, the expression ‘international carriage’, which is defined in Article 1(2) of the convention and which has been interpreted by various national courts, 32does not appear in the regulation.
Izraz „mednarodni prevoz“, določen v členu 1(2) Konvencije in ki so ga razlagala �tevilna nacionalna sodi�ča, 32se ne pojavi v Uredbi.
I do not accept that argument.
S to trditvijo se ne strinjam.
It seems to me that one should not seek to apply (different) terms contained in the
Zdi se mi, da se ne sme uporabljati (različnih) izrazov, vsebovanih v Montre-
29 — Recital 14 refers to the convention in the context of an exoneration provision in the regulation.
29 – Štirinajsta uvodna izjava se sklicuje na Konvencijo, če določba Uredbe določa izključitev.
However, that reference is general in nature.
Vendar je to sklicevanje le splo�no.
It merely links the two texts, without mentioning any specific provision.
Le povezuje obe besedili, brez omembe posebne določbe.
That is particularly apparent in the French version of the recital, which begins: ‘Tout comme dans le cadre de la convention de Montréal …’ (emphasis added).
To je posebej očitno v francoski različici besedila, ki se začenja tako: „Tout comme dans le cadre de la convention de Montréal […]“ (moj poudarek).
30 — Council Regulation (EC) of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents (OJ 1997 L 285, p.
30 – Uredba Sveta (ES) z dne 9. oktobra 1997 o odgovornosti letalskih prevoznikov v primeru nesreč (UL L 285, str.
1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002 (OJ 2002 L 140, p. 2).
1), kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) �t. 889/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 13. maja 2002 (UL L 140, str. 2).
According to recital 6 of the latter regulation, it was necessary to amend Regulation No 2027/97 in order to align it with the provisions of the Montreal Convention, thereby creating a uniform system of liability for international air transport.
V skladu s �esto uvodno izjavo zadnjenavedene uredbe je bilo treba Uredbo �t. 2027/97 spremeniti zaradi uskladitve z določbami Montrealske konvencije in s tem oblikovati enoten sistem odgovornosti v mednarodnem letalskem prevozu.
A consolidated version of Regulation No 2027/97, dated 30 May 2002, may be accessed via http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
Preči�čena različica Uredbe �t. 2027/97 z dne 30. maja 2002 je dostopna na: http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
31 — See Article 1 of Regulation No 2027/97, as amended.32 — See point 48 above and the footnote thereto.
31 – Glej člen 1 Uredbe �t. 2027/97, kot je bil spremenjen.32 – Glej točko 48 zgoraj in opombo v njej.
First, the regulation’s scope of application is different from that of the convention.
Prvič, področje uporabe uredbe je drugačno od področja uporabe Konvencije.
In many respects the former addresses situations not covered by the latter.
V več ozirih se prva ne nana�a na primere, za katere velja druga.
For example, the regulation is applicable to purely internal flights within a Member State and to flights from a Member State to a third country which is not a State Party to the convention.
Na primer, uredba se uporablja le za notranje lete med državami članicami in za lete iz države članice v tretjo državo, ki ni država pogodbenica Konvencije.
Unlike the convention, the regulation covers boarding denials and flight cancellations.
Drugače kot konvencija, se uredba nana�a na zavrnitve vkrcanja in odpovedi letov.
Conversely, the regulation’s field of application is limited by territorial considerations.
Nasprotno temu je področje uporabe Uredbe ozemeljsko omejeno. Ne nana�a se na lete
35The regulation’s measures to address flight delays ‘do not themselves prevent the passengers concerned … from being able to bring in addition actions to redress [the] damage under the conditions laid down by the [convention]’.
35 Ukrepi iz uredbe pri zamudah letov „sami ne preprečujejo, da bi zadevni potniki […] lahko vložili tožbe za nadomestilo […] �kode pod pogoji, določenimi s [Konvencijo]“. 36Raje „izbolj-
36Rather, they ‘enhance the protection afforded to passengers’ interests and improve the conditions under which the principle of restitution is applicable to passengers’. 37
�ajo varstvo interesov potnikov, in pogoje, pod katerimi se za potnike uporablja načelo povračila �kode“. 37
It is not a substitute for the convention. That is clear from Article 12 of the regulation, which expressly provides that it should apply ‘without prejudice to a passenger’s rights to further compensation’.
V teh okoli�činah mislim, da na podlagi tega, da določen primer pokriva le konvencija, ni mogoče trditi, da je splo�na raven varstva, ki ga daje uredba, nujno nižja od varstva, ki ga daje Konvencija.
Thus the protection which the regulation affords in respect of flight delays is complementary in nature.
Tako je varstvo, ki ga uredba daje v zvezi z zamudami letov, po naravi dopolnilno.
That must a fortiori be true of compensatory and other measures it provides in respect of flight cancellations and boarding denials.
To je a fortiori res za kompenzacijske in druge ukrepe, ki jih zagotavlja v primeru odpovedi letov in zavrnitve vkrcanja.
The convention offers passengers no protection at all against such occurrences.
Drugič, Uredba �t. 261/2004 dopolnjuje varstvo, ki ga konvencija daje letalskim potnikom. Ni nadomestek za Konvencijo.
In those circumstances, I cannot accept the argument that the regulation’s level of protection will lag behind that offered by the convention unless it is construed in a way that runs counter to its plain text, its legisla- tive history and its ostensible purpose.
V teh okoli�činah ne morem sprejeti trditve, da je raven varstva iz uredbe nižja od te, ki jo daje konvencija, razen če se uredbo razlaga tako, da je v nasprotju s svojim besedilom, zakonodajno zgodovino in domnevnim namenom.
In IATA, 33the Court held that flight delays may, in general terms, cause two types of damage which call for different remedies.
V zadevi IATA 33 je Sodi�če presodilo, da zamuda pri letalskem prevozu lahko povzroči dve vrsti �kode, ki se ju različno re�uje.
The first is identical for every passenger.
Prva je enaka za vse potnike.
34 While the convention covers the second type of damage, the regulation offers standardised, immediate compensatory measures for the first type.
Druga je posebna za vsakega posameznega potnika in se jo povrne naknadno in individualno 34.
It thus ‘simply operates at an earlier stage than the system which results from the Montreal
Medtem ko konvencija ureja drugo vrsto �kode, pa uredba nudi standardizirane, takoj�nje kompenzacijske ukrepe za prvo vrsto �kode.
I therefore suggest that the Court should answer the referring court’s question as follows:
Sodi�ču zato predlagam, naj na vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča odgovori tako:
Passengers on a return flight from a third country to a Member State are not ‘passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004, and are hence not within the personal scope of that regulation if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is not a Community carrier, even if the outward and return flights were booked at the same time.
Potniki, ki letijo nazaj iz tretje države članice v državo članico, niso „potniki, ki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice“ v smislu člena 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 in torej zanje ta uredba ne velja, če dejanski letalski prevoznik zadevnega leta ni letalski prevoznik Skupnosti, čeprav sta bila leta tja in nazaj rezervirana istočasno.
2008 — CASE C-173/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-173/07
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between the airline company Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland (‘Emirates’) and Dr Schenkel concerning Emirates’ refusal to compensate him following the cancellation of a flight departing from Manila (Philippines).
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med letalsko družbo Emirates Airlines – Direktion für Deutschland (v nadaljevanju: Emirates) in D. Schenklom, ker je družba Emirates slednjemu zavrnila izplačilo od�kodnine zaradi odpovedi leta ob povratku iz Manile (Filipini).
International law
Mednarodni predpisi
The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention), concluded by the European Community, was approved by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).
Konvencija o poenotenju nekaterih pravil za mednarodni letalski prevoz (Montrealska konvencija), ki jo je sklenila Evropska skupnost, je bila odobrena s Sklepom Sveta 2001/539/ES z dne 5. aprila 2001 (UL L 194, str. 38, v nadaljevanju: Montrealska konvencija).
The Montreal Convention aims in particular to ensure protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution.
Namen te konvencije je zlasti zagotoviti varstvo interesov potro�nikov, ki uporabljajo mednarodni letalski prevoz in pravično od�kodnino, ki temelji na načelu povrnitve v prej�nje stanje.
Article 1(2) and (3) of the convention, relating to its scope, provides:
V členu 1(2) in (3) te konvencije je glede področja njene uporabe določeno:
For the purposes of this Convention, the expression international carriage means any carriage in which, according to the agreement between the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in the carriage or a transhipment, are situated either within the territories of two States Parties, or within the territory of a single State Party if there is an agreed stopping place within the territory of another State, even if that State is not a State Party.
V tej konvenciji izraz mednarodni prevoz pomeni vsak prevoz, pri katerem sta po dogovoru med pogodbenicama kraj odhoda in namembni kraj ne glede na to, ali se prevoz ali pretovarjanje prekine ali ne, na ozemljih dveh držav pogodbenic ali na ozemlju ene države pogodbenice, če je dogovorjeni kraj za vmesni postanek na ozemlju druge države, tudi če ta država ni država pogodbenica.
Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers is deemed, for the purposes of this Convention, to be one undivided carriage if it has been regarded by
Prevoz, ki ga bo opravilo več prevoznikov drug za drugim, se v tej konvenciji �teje za enoten prevoz, če ga pogodbenice �tejejo za en sam prevoz, ne glede na to, ali je
2008 — CASE C-173/07 the parties as a single operation, whether it has been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of contracts, and it does not lose its international character merely because one contract or a series of contracts is to be performed entirely within the territory of the same State.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-173/07 bil dogovorjen na podlagi ene same pogodbe ali več pogodb, in ostaja mednarodni prevoz, tudi če bo ena ali več pogodb v celoti izpolnjenih na ozemlju iste države.“
Article 2 of Regulation No 261/2004, ‘Definitions’, provides:
V členu 2 Uredbe �t. 261/2004 z naslovom „Opredelitve pojmov“ je določeno:
‘For the purposes of this Regulation:
„V tej uredbi:
(h) “final destination” means 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; alternative connecting flights available shall not be taken into account if the original planned arrival time is respected;
[…] g) ‚rezervacija‘ pomeni dejstvo, da ima potnik vozovnico ali drugačen dokaz, ki navaja, da je letalski prevoznik ali organizator potovanja rezervacijo sprejel in registriral; h) ‚končni namembni kraj‘ pomeni namembni kraj, naveden na vozovnici, ki je predložena pri prijavi na let, ali v primeru vmesnih letov za zvezo namembni kraj zadnjega leta; razpoložljivi nadomestni vmesni leti za zvezo se ne upo�tevajo, če je spo�tovan prvotno načrtovani čas prihoda;
In accordance with Article 3 of the regulation, ‘Scope’:
V členu 3 te uredbe z naslovom „Področje uporabe“ je določeno:
(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.
Ta uredba se uporablja za: a) potnike, ki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, za katero se Pogodba [ES] uporablja; b) potnike, ki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju tretje države in so namenjeni na letali�če na ozemlju države članice, za katero se Pogodba uporablja, razen če ti potniki prejmejo storitve ali od�kodnino in pomoč v tej tretji državi, če je dejanski letalski prevoznik zadevnega leta iz Skupnosti.
Under Article 4 of Regulation No 261/2004, ‘Denied boarding’:
V členu 4 Uredbe �t. 261/2004 z naslovom „Zavrnitev vkrcanja“ je določeno:
When an operating air carrier reasonably expects to deny boarding on a flight, it shall first call for volunteers to surrender their reservations in exchange for benefits under conditions to be agreed between the passenger concerned and the operating air carrier.
Kadar dejanski letalski prevoznik utemeljeno pričakuje zavrnitev vkrcanja na letu, naj najprej pozove prostovoljce, da se odpovejo svojim rezervacijam v zameno za storitve pod pogoji, o katerih se dogovorita zadevni potnik in dejanski letalski prevoznik.
Volunteers shall be assisted in accordance with Article 8, such assistance being additional to the benefits mentioned in this paragraph.
Prostovoljcem se ponudi, poleg storitev iz tega odstavka, tudi pomoč v skladu s členom 8.
Article 5 of Regulation No 261/2004, ‘Cancellation’, provides:
V členu 5 Uredbe �t. 261/2004 z naslovom „Odpoved leta“ je določeno:
(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7 …
[…] c) imajo zadevni potniki pravico do od�kodnine, ki jim jo mora plačati dejanski letalski prevoznik v skladu s členom 7 […]
Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, ‘Right to compensation’, provides:
V členu 7 Uredbe �t. 261/2004 z naslovom „Pravica do od�kodnine“ je določeno:
(a) EUR 250 for all flights of 1 500 kilometres or less;
Pri sklicevanju na ta člen potniki prejmejo od�kodnino v vi�ini: a) 250 eurov za lete do vključno 1500 kilometrov;
(c) EUR 600 for all flights not falling under (a) or (b).
EMIRATES AIRLINES b) 400 eurov za vse lete znotraj Skupnosti nad 1500 kilometrov in za vse druge lete med 1500 in 3500 kilometri; c) 600 eurov za lete, ki niso zajeti v točkah (a) ali (b).
In determining the distance, the basis shall be the last destination at which the denial of boarding or cancellation will delay the passenger’s arrival after the scheduled time.
Za določitev oddaljenosti, ki jo je treba upo�tevati, se �teje zadnji kraj, na katerega bo potnik zaradi zavrnitve vkrcanja ali odpovedi leta prispel z zamudo glede na predvideni vozni red letov.
Article 8 of Regulation No 261/2004, ‘Right to reimbursement or re-routing’, provides:
261/2004 z naslovom „Pravica do povračila stro�kov ali spremembe poti“ je določeno:
(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,
Pri sklicevanju na ta člen se potnikom ponudi izbira med: a) – povračilom stro�kov v roku sedmih dni na način iz člena 7(3) v vi�ini polne cene vozovnice, po kateri je bila kupljena, za tisti del ali tiste dele poti, ki niso bili opravljeni[,] in za tisti del ali tiste dele poti, ki so bili že opravljeni, če let ne služi več namenu glede na potnikov prvotni potovalni načrt, in v tem primeru skupaj s
— a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;
– povratnim letom na izhodi�čno mesto odhoda takoj, ko je mogoče;
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
2008 – ZADEVA C-173/07 b) spremembo poti pod primerljivimi pogoji prevoza na njihov končni namembni kraj takoj, ko je mogoče; ali c) spremembo poti pod primerljivimi pogoji prevoza na njihov končni namembni kraj pozneje, ko potnikom ustreza, glede na razpoložljivost sedežev.
Paragraph 1(a) shall also apply to passengers whose flights form part of a package, except for the right to reimbursement where such right arises under [Council] Directive 90/314/EEC [of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59)].
Odstavek 1(a) se uporablja tudi za potnike, katerih leti so del paketa, razen za pravico do povračila stro�kov, kadar tak�na pravica izhaja iz Direktive [Sveta] 90/314/EGS [z dne 13. junija 1990 o paketnem potovanju, organiziranih počitnicah in izletih (UL L 158, str. 59)].
Under Article 17 of Regulation No 261/2004, ‘Report’:
V okviru člena 17 Uredbe �t. 261/2004 z naslovom „Poročilo“:
‘The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 January 2007 on the operation and the results of this Regulation, in particular regarding:
„Komisija predloži Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu poročilo o uporabi in rezultatih te uredbe najpozneje do 1. januarja 2007, �e zlasti glede:
— the possible extension of the scope of this Regulation to passengers having a contract with a Community carrier or holding a flight reservation which forms part of a “package tour” to which Directive 90/314/EEC applies and who depart
– možnosti, da se področje uporabe te uredbe raz�iri na potnike, ki imajo pogodbo z letalskim prevoznikom Skupnosti ali rezervacijo za let, ki je del ‚paketnega poto-
EMIRATES AIRLINES from a third-country airport to an airport in a Member State, on flights not operated by Community air carriers,
EMIRATES AIRLINES vanja‘, iz Direktive 90/314/EGS in odhajajo z letali�ča tretje države na letali�če države članice na letih, ki jih ne opravljajo letalski prevozniki Skupnosti,
The flight was cancelled because of technical problems.
Ta let je bil odpovedan zaradi tehničnih težav. D.
Dr Schenkel eventually departed from Manila on 14 March 2006 and arrived at Düsseldorf on the same day.
Schenkel je naposled odpotoval iz Manile 14. marca 2006 in isti dan prispel v Düsseldorf.
He argued that the compensation provided for in those provisions in the event of the cancellation of a flight applied to him in the present case.
Trdi, da je upravičen do od�kodnine, ki je v teh določbah predvidena v primeru odpovedi leta.
He submitted that the outward and return flights were non-independent parts of a single flight.
Poudaril je, da sta let tja in nazaj odvisna dela enega in istega leta.
Since the point of departure of that single flight was Düsseldorf, he was thus a passenger ‘departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State’ of the European Community within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation.
Ker je bil izhodi�čni kraj tega leta Düsseldorf, je bil torej potnik, ki odhaja z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice Evropskih skupnosti, v smislu člena 3(1)(a) te uredbe.
Emirates submitted that the outward and return flights were to be regarded as two separate flights.
Družba Emirates je zatrjevala, da je treba let tja in nazaj �teti za dva ločena leta.
Furthermore, Emirates did not have a licence granted by a Member State in accordance with Article 2(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 1).
Poleg tega letalska družba Emirates nima licence, ki jo izda država članica v skladu s členom 2(c) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 2407/92 z dne 23. julija 1992 o licenciranju letalskih prevoznikov (UL L 240, str. 1).
‘Is Article 3(1)(a) of [Regulation No 261/2004] to be interpreted as meaning that “a flight” includes the flight from the point of departure to the destination and back, at any rate where the outward and return flights are booked at the same time?’
„Ali je treba določbe člena 3(1)(a) Uredbe […] �t. 261/2004 […] razlagati tako, da ‚let‘ vključuje potovanje z letalom iz kraja odhoda v namembni kraj in nazaj vedno, kadar sta let tja in nazaj rezervirana istočasno?“
The referring court asks essentially whether Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004 is to be interpreted as applying to the case of an outward and return journey in which passengers who have originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies travel back to that airport on a flight departing from an airport located in a nonmember country.
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 razlagati tako, da se uporabi v primeru povratnega leta, v okviru katerega potniki, ki prvotno odletijo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, za katero veljajo določbe Pogodbe, priletijo na to letali�če v okviru leta z odhodom z letali�ča v tretji državi.
The referring court also asks whether the fact that the outward and return flights are the subject of a single booking affects the interpretation of that provision.
Predložitveno sodi�če ravno tako spra�uje, ali okoli�čina, da je povratni let predmet ene rezervacije, vpliva na razlago te določbe.
In its question the referring court uses the term ‘flight’ and refers to the concept of journey or travel which appears in Regulation No 261/2004, and asks whether a ‘flight’ includes a journey by air from the point of departure to the destination and back.
Ko je predložitveno sodi�če postavilo to vpra�anje, se je sklicevalo na pojma „let“ in „potovanje“, ki sta uporabljena v Uredbi �t. 261/2004, in zdaj spra�uje, ali pojem let vključuje povratni let na potovanju z letalom.
As the Advocate General observes in point 8 of her Opinion, passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State or in a nonmember country are necessarily passengers embarking on a flight departing from such an airport.
Kot ugotavlja tudi generalna pravobranilka v točki 8 sklepnih predlogov, so potniki, ki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, zgolj potniki, ki se vkrcajo na letalo, ki odleti s tega letali�ča.
That divergence between the various language versions therefore has no effect on the actual meaning to be given to the provisions concerned, which determine the scope of the regulation.
To razhajanje med različnimi jezikovnimi različicami nima posledic za dejanski pomen, ki se ga pripi�e zadevnim določbam, ki opredelijo področje uporabe te uredbe.
Consequently, the Court must begin by interpreting the term ‘flight’.
Zato je treba najprej razložiti pojem let.
It should be noted, in this respect, that that term is not among those defined in Regulation No 261/2004, in Article 2, headed ‘Definitions’.
Glede na to je treba ugotoviti, da člen 2 z naslovom „Opredelitve“ iz Uredbe �t. 261/2004 tega pojma ne omenja.
Nor is it defined in the other articles of the regulation.
Poleg tega ni opredeljen v drugih členih te uredbe.