Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015CN0257

    Case C-257/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH

    Information about publishing Official Journal not found, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    24.8.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 279/19


    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH

    (Case C-257/15)

    (2015/C 279/23)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Amtsgericht Hannover

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicants: Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann

    Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

    Questions referred

    1.

    Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that extraordinary circumstances which arise during a preceding flight continue to constitute extraordinary circumstances in relation to the flight at issue in the case where the airline operator has the possibility to avoid delay in the remaining flights of the flight sequence by not carrying out certain flights within that flight sequence?

    2.

    If the Court’s answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Must the extraordinary circumstances have arisen on the same day, the previous day or, more generally, only within the scheduled flight sequence?


    (1)  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 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


    Top