Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015CN0305

Case C-305/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 24 June 2015 — Delta Air Lines Inc. v Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen

OJ C 294, 7.9.2015, p. 36–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/36


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 24 June 2015 — Delta Air Lines Inc. v Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen

(Case C-305/15)

(2015/C 294/46)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delta Air Lines Inc.

Defendants: Daniel Dam Hansen, Mille Doktor, Carsten Jensen, Mogens Jensen, Dorthe Fabricius, Jens Ejner Rasmussen, Christian Bøje Pedersen, Andreas Fabricius, Mads Wedel Rasmussen, Nicklas Wedel Rasmussen, Thomas Lindstrøm Jensen, Marianne Thestrup Jensen, Erik Lindstrøm Jensen, Jakob Lindstrøm Jensen, Liva Doktor, Peter Lindstrøm Jensen

Questions referred

1.

Are Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 to be interpreted as meaning that airline passengers may be entitled to compensation under the regulation more than once on the basis of the same reservation, when the flight on which the operating air carrier has rebooked the passenger is cancelled or delayed by more than three hours, with the result that the compensation under Article 7 of the regulation is not fixed but rather is contingent on the number of cancellations or on the scope of the cancellation and therefore delay?

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, how is that to be reconciled with the principle laid down in the EU Court of Justice’s judgment of 19 November 2009 in Sturgeon and Others, C-402/07 and C-432/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:716, under which Article 5 of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed are to be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled under the rules on compensation, when the EU Court of Justice held in its judgment of 23 October 2012 in Nelson and Others, C-581/10 and C-629/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:657 that delays of over three hours’ duration cannot be taken into account in the calculation of the fixed compensation?


(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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


Top