Case C‑559/16

Birgit Bossen and Others

v

Brussels Airlines SA/NV

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg)

(References for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 7(1) — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Flight consisting of several legs — Concept of ‘distance’ to be taken into account)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 7 September 2017

1. Transport—Air transport—Regulation No 261/2004—Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights—Right to compensation if flight is cancelled—Applicability in the event of a long delay—Principle of equal treatment

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Recital 3 and Arts 5, 6 and 7)

2. Transport—Air transport—Regulation No 261/2004—Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights—Right to compensation in the event of delay—Flight consisting of several legs—Concept of ‘distance’—Scope

   (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 7(1))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 18-22)

2.  Article 7(1) of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates, in the case of air routes with connecting flights, only to the distance calculated between the first point of departure and the final destination on the basis of the ‘great circle’ method, regardless of the distance actually flown.

   Therefore, when determining the amount of compensation, account should be taken of the distance between the first point of departure and the final destination, excluding any connecting flights.

   In particular, the Court stated that the basis of their compensation was the inconvenience of having suffered a loss of time of three hours or more in relation to the original planning of that transport, as established, including in the case of connecting flights, upon arrival at their final destination (see to that effect, judgment of 26 February 2013, Folkerts, C‑11/11, EU:C:2013:106, paragraph 35). In view of the nature of the inconvenience thus suffered, any differences in the distance actually travelled do not in themselves influence the extent of such an inconvenience.

   (see paras 29, 31-33, operative part)