Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62010CN0629

    Case C-629/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 24 December 2010 — TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association, The Queen v Civil Aviation Authority

    OJ C 89, 19.3.2011, p. 10–10 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    19.3.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 89/10

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 24 December 2010 — TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association, The Queen v Civil Aviation Authority

    (Case C-629/10)

    2011/C 89/18

    Language of the case: English

    Referring court

    High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicants: TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association

    Defendant: Civil Aviation Authority

    Questions referred

    1.

    Are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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 (EC) No 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 (EC) No 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?

    (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 L 46, p. 1

    Top