Cees van Dam

Home                         Cees van Dam                 Publications                 Consultancy                  Advisering                   Contact



 OK

Cees van Dam

Air Passenger Rights: Pending EU Cases


 Order Air Passenger Rights   |   Download iPhone App   |   Bestel Passagiersgids 


App                   Blog                  Book                  Case Law              Rules

This page lists all Air Passenger Rights cases pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Click here for an overview of the cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union.


ESTEVES COELHO DOS SANTOS | Preliminary questions

Lodged 8 July 2011, Case C-365/11

Calculating Sturgeon delay

As a result of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009 (Sturgeon) should the Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation 261/2004 be interpreted in the same way in the case of a flight that, having started on time at the place of departure, was delayed at the stop-over airport for three hours and fifty five minutes before taking off again because the airline, for operational reasons, decided to change equipment, where the equipment that replaced the previous equipment had already broken down prior to the stopover and needed a technical intervention, so that the flight arrived at the destination location with the said delay of three hours and fifty five minutes?



RODRIGUEZ CACHAFERO

 
Preliminary questions

Lodged 28 June 2011, Case C-321/11

Denied boarding

May the definition of ‘denied boarding’ contained in Article 2(j), in conjunction with Article 3(2) and 4(3), of Regulation 261/2004, be regarded as including a situation in which an airline refuses to allow boarding because the first flight included in the ticket is subject to a delay ascribable to the airline and the latter erroneously expects the passengers not to arrive in time to catch the second flight, and so allows their seats to be taken by other passengers? 



Lodged 27 June 2011, Case C-315/11

Compatibility Sturgeon and Montreal

Is a right to compensation in case of delay, as described in Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004, consistent with the last sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention, given the fact that, according to the first sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention, actions for damages founded in contract, in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in the Montreal Convention.


If a right to compensation in case of delay, as described in Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004, is not consistent with Article 29 of the Montreal Convention, are any limitations then imposed in respect of the moment when the ruling of the Court of Justice enters into effect as regards the present case and/or in general?



Büsch and Siever Preliminary questions

Lodged 24 May 2011, Case C-255/11

Compatibility Sturgeon and Montreal

Does the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation constitute a claim for damages which is subject to the limits of liability set out in the Montreal Convention, by virtue of the first sentence of Article 29 thereof, where it is to be granted because of a long delay of a flight?

Is the right to compensation under Article 7 of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation non-compensatory within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention in so far as it exceeds the damage incurred by the air passenger as a result of the long delay? Does this preclude a right to compensation entirely or does such a right arise in the event of delays only in the amount of the damage actually incurred?


Lodged 28 March 2011, Case C-151/11

Delay

1. Does a passenger have a right to payment of compensation under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 in the case where the flight, following its departure according to schedule, is discontinued and the aircraft, before arriving at the airport of destination, returns to the airport of departure and subsequently takes off again with a delay which is relevant for payment of compensation?

2. Is there a discontinuance in the case where, after the aircraft doors have been closed, the journey is not continued? From what point is there a discontinuance of the start, rather than a delayed start?



CUADRENCH (Preliminary questions)

Lodged 21 March 2011, Case C-131/11

Time limit for claim

Is Regulation 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that, as regards time-limits for bringing proceedings, Article 35 of the Montreal Convention, establishing a two year period, is applicable, or must some other Community provision or the relevant domestic law be regarded as applicable?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lodged 18 January 2011, Case C-22/11

Denied boarding

1. Is Regulation 261/2004 and in particular Article 4 thereof to be interpreted as meaning that its application is limited only to cases of denied boarding which are caused by overbooking by the air carrier for economic reasons, or is the regulation applicable also to situations in which boarding is denied for other reasons, such as operational reasons?

2. Is Article 2(j) of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the reasonable grounds laid down therein are limited only to factors relating to passengers, or may denied boarding be reasonable on other grounds? If the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that denied boarding may be reasonable on grounds other than those relating to passengers, is it to be interpreted as meaning that denied boarding may also be reasonable on the grounds of the rescheduling of flights as a result of the extraordinary circumstances mentioned in recitals 14 and 15?

3. Is the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier may be exempted from liability under Article 5(3) in extraordinary circumstances not only with respect to a flight which it cancelled, but also with respect to passengers on later flights, on the ground that by its actions it attempted to spread the negative effects of the extraordinary circumstances it encountered in its operations, such as a strike, among a wider class of passengers than the cancelled flight's passengers by rescheduling its later flights so that no passenger's journey was unreasonably delayed? In other words, may an air carrier rely on extraordinary circumstances also with respect to a passenger on a later flight whose journey was not directly affected by that factor? Does it make a significant difference whether the passenger's situation and right to compensation are assessed in accordance with Article 4 on denied boarding or with Article 5 on flight cancellation?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FOLKERTS (Preliminary questions)

Lodged 11 January 2011, Case C-11/11

Compensation for delay - Applicability time limits Article 6

1. Does a passenger have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 in the case where departure 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?

2. If the first question is answered in the negative: For the purpose of determining whether there was a delay, within the terms of Article 6(1) of Regulation 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?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MCDONAGH (Preliminary questions)

Lodged 10 January 2011, Case C-12/11

Right to care - Exceptions

1. Do circumstances such as the closures of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland, which caused widespread and prolonged disruption to air travel, go beyond 'extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of Regulation 261/2004?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is liability for the duty to provide care excluded under Articles 5 and 9 in such circumstances?

3. If the answer to question 2 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an 'equitable balance of interests' enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

4. Is the obligation in Articles 5 and 9 to be interpreted as containing an implied limitation, such as a temporal and/or a monetary limit, to provide care in cases where cancellation is caused by 'extraordinary circumstances’?

5. If the answer to question 4 is no, are Articles 5 and 9 invalid in so far as they violate the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an 'equitable balance of interests' enshrined in the Montreal Convention, and Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lodged 24 December 2010, Case C-629/10

Compatibility Sturgeon with Montreal and IATA

1. Are Articles 5-7 of Regulation 261/20041 to be interpreted as requiring the compensation provided for in Article 7 to be paid to passengers whose flights are subject to delay within the meaning of Article 6, and if so in what circumstances?

2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, are Articles 5-7 of Regulation 261/2004 invalid, in whole or in part, for breach of the principle of equal treatment?

3. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 5-7 of Regulation 261/2004 invalid, in whole or in part, for (a) inconsistency with the Montreal Convention; (b) breach of the principle of proportionality; and/or (c) breach of the principle of legal certainty?

4. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 3 in the negative, what if any limits are to be placed upon the temporal effects of the Court's ruling in this case?

5. If question 1 is answered in the negative, what if any effect is to be given to the decision of Sturgeon between 19 November 2009 and the date of the Court's ruling in this case? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lodged 13 December 2010, C-581/10

Compatibility Sturgeon with Montreal and IATA

1. Does the right to compensation provided for in Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 constitute a claim for non-compensatory damages within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention?

2. What is the relationship between, on the one hand, the right to compensation based on Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 which a passenger has, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others [2009] ECR I-10923, if he reaches his final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time and, on the other hand, the right to compensation in respect of delay provided for in Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, regard being had to the exclusion under the second sentence of Article 29 of the Montreal Convention?

3. How may the interpretative criterion underlying the Court of Justice's judgment in Sturgeon and Others, which allows the right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 to be extended to cover cases of delay, be reconciled with the interpretative criterion which the Court of Justice applied to that regulation in its judgment in Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403?





Copyright (C) 2007 Cees van Dam - All Rights Reserved.
Site by AshwinDigital