Joined Cases C‑195/17, C‑197/17 to C‑203/17, C‑226/17, C‑228/17, C‑254/17, C‑274/17, C‑275/17, C‑278/17 to C‑286/17 and C‑290/17 to C‑292/17

Helga Krüsemann and Others

v

TUIfly GmbH

(Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover and the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf)

(References for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Article 7(1) — Right to compensation — Exemption — ‘Extraordinary circumstances’ — ‘Wildcat strike’)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 April 2018

Transport — Air transport — Regulation No 261/2004 — Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Condition — Extraordinary circumstances — Concept — Spontaneous absence of a significant part of flight crew staff (wildcat strikes) stemming from the surprise announcement by an operating air carrier of a restructuring of the undertaking, following a call echoed not by the staff representatives of the company but spontaneously by the workers themselves who placed themselves on sick leave — Not included

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 5(3))

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, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the spontaneous absence of a significant part of the flight crew staff (‘wildcat strikes’), such as that at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, which stems from the surprise announcement by an operating air carrier of a restructuring of the undertaking, following a call echoed not by the staff representatives of the company but spontaneously by the workers themselves who placed themselves on sick leave, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

(see para. 48, operative part)