1.

Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that an extraordinary circumstance exists where the cancellation of the flight is due to the fact that another aircraft is pushed back from an opposite gate and in doing so damages an elevator of the aircraft intended for the subsequently cancelled flight?

2.

Must Articles 5(3) and 7 of that regulation be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier arguing extraordinary circumstances as the cause for cancellation can rely on the ground for exoneration in Article 5(3) of the regulation only if it can also prove that the consequences of the cancellation for the individual passenger could not have been prevented by re-booking onto alternative transport?

3.

Must a re-booking referred to under question 2 meet specific temporal or qualitative criteria, in particular the criteria set out in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) or in Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of the Regulation?

1.

Article 5(3) 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 a collision between the elevator of an aircraft in the parking position and the winglet of an aircraft of another airline caused by the movement of the second aircraft falls within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.must be interpreted as meaning that a collision between the elevator of an aircraft in the parked position and the winglet of an aircraft of another airline caused by the movement of the second aircraft is not covered by that regulation.

2.

Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, where an air carrier cancels the originally scheduled flight owing to extraordinary circumstances, the re-routing of a passenger on a flight on which the passenger reaches his final destination on the day after the originally scheduled date of arrival constitutes a ‘reasonable measure’ which relieves that carrier of its obligation to provide compensation under Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7(1) of that regulation, unless there was another possibility of direct or indirect transport by a flight operated by itself or by another air carrier which arrived with a shorter delay than the next flight operated by the air carrier concerned, unless the latter proves that the provision of such alternative transport would have represented an unacceptable sacrifice for it in view of the capacity of its undertaking at the relevant time, which is for the referring court to determine.