Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CN0368

Case C-368/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 5 June 2018 — Frank Casteels v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

OJ C 285, 13.8.2018, p. 27–28 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201807270282024582018/C 285/443682018CJC28520180813EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180605272821

Case C-368/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 5 June 2018 — Frank Casteels v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

Top

C2852018EN2710120180605EN0044271282

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 5 June 2018 — Frank Casteels v Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

(Case C-368/18)

2018/C 285/44Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Frank Casteels

Defendant: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd

Questions referred

The following questions concerning the interpretation of 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, ( 1 ) are referred:

Does the circumstance at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, strike action by the employees of the handling company at the departure airport of the flight concerned, fall to be classified under the notion of an ‘event’ within the meaning of paragraph 22 of the judgment of 22 December 2008, Wallentin-Hermann (C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771), or under that of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of recital 14 of that regulation, as interpreted by the judgment of 31 January 2013, McDonagh (C-12/11, EU:C:2013:43), or do those two concepts merge?

Must 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, be interpreted as meaning that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, strike action by the employees of the handling company at the departure airport of the flight concerned, must be found to be an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of an air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers where a flight operated by the aircraft concerned is cancelled?

If an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, strike action by the employees of the handling company at the departure airport of the flight concerned, must be found to be an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must it be inferred from this that, for the air carrier, this is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken?

Must the fact that the strike was announced be regarded as having the effect that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, strike action by the employees of the handling company at the departure airport of the flight concerned, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of 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?


( 1 ) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

Top