- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-413/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 2 September 2020 — Belgian State v LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0413
62020CN0413
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
9.11.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 378/20
(Case C-413/20)
(2020/C 378/25)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Belgian State
Defendants: LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)
Questions referred
1.Does point 9 of Appendix 3 to Subpart A of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) allow hours of training completed on an FNPT II flight simulator (instrument ground time) in excess of the number of 15 hours of MCC referred to in point 9(e)(2) and in excess of the maximum of 40 hours of instrument flight instruction in an FNPT II, referred to in point 9(e)(3)(ii), that is to say more than 55 hours of instrument ground time, to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in point 9(e)?
2.Does the answer to the first question vary depending on whether the hours completed in excess of the 15 hours and 40 hours referred to above consist of hours of MCC or of a different type of simulator training?
3.If the answer to the two preceding questions is in the negative, does point 10 of Appendix 3 to Subpart A of Annex I to that regulation permit the CPL(A) licence to be granted after the candidate pilots have completed their training by a sufficient number of hours in an aircraft, without the skill test relating to instrument flight being retaken?
4.If the answer to the three preceding questions is in the negative, does the general principle of legal certainty require that the interpretation of the legal rule in question provided by the Court of Justice be limited in time, so that, for example, it will apply only to candidate pilots who request the grant of a CPL(A) licence, or even to those who have commenced their training in order to obtain such a licence, after the date of the judgment of the Court of Justice?
* Language of the case: French.
(1) OJ 2011 L 311, p. 1.