Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2018 — IZ v Ryanair DAC

(Case C-735/18)

(2019/C 44/21)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: IZ

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Questions referred

The request for a preliminary ruling relating to 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) is worded as follows:

—

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, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is to be regarded as an event inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier and, accordingly, cannot be classified as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ exonerating the air carrier from its obligation to compensate passengers in the case where a flight operated by the aircraft concerned is cancelled?

—

If an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, is to be regarded as 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, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, 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?

—

Having regard to recital 15 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, must it be found that an event such as that at issue in the present proceedings, namely strike action by air traffic controllers in the territory to be overflown by an aircraft departing from and bound for an airport located outside the territory affected by the strike, constituted, for the air carrier, an extraordinary circumstance which could not have been avoided and entitled that carrier, as a reasonable measure in order to avoid further cancellations, to take the decision to cancel the flight at issue so as to avoid a situation in which its crews would no longer be able to operate other flights on the day of the strike, thereby minimising overall the disruption and inconvenience caused by the strike to its passengers as a whole?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.