- 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 T-287/25, Groisweber: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 11 April 2025 – A***** and B***** v C***** GmbH
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025TN0287
62025TN0287
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
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2025/3425
30.6.2025
(Case T-287/25, Groisweber)
(C/2025/3425)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: A***** and B*****
Respondent: C***** GmbH
Questions referred
Must Article 2(f) and (j) of Regulation No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) be interpreted as meaning that Regulation No 261/2004 is applicable when a tour operator, with which [an air carrier] has no contractual relationship, and of whose activity on behalf of the passenger [the air carrier] is unaware, books a flight with that air carrier on behalf of the passenger, in respect of which the air carrier issues a booking confirmation?
Must Article 7(1), Article 4(3) and Article 2(f) and (j) of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier is obliged to compensate a passenger if a tour operator with which it has no contractual relationship, and of whose activity on behalf of the passenger it is unaware, books a flight with that air carrier on behalf of the passenger, in respect of which the air carrier issues a booking confirmation; the tour operator – without being prompted by the air carrier – informed the passenger a few hours before the planned flight that the flight had been rescheduled due to a change in flight number, flight time and final destination; the passenger – although already checked in for the flight – did not, therefore, present himself for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of the regulation; however, the flight originally booked was actually operated as planned; and the air carrier would have carried the passenger if he had presented himself for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of the regulation?
—
(1) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
(2) 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).
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3425/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—