- 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-530/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH v ON (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles 5 and 9 — Obligation of the air carrier to offer hotel accommodation to passengers whose flights have been cancelled — Damage suffered by a passenger during her stay at the hotel providing the accommodation — Possibility of invoking the liability of the air carrier as a result of negligence on the part of employees of the hotel)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0530
62019CA0530
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
C 378/13
(Case C-530/19) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 5 and 9 - Obligation of the air carrier to offer hotel accommodation to passengers whose flights have been cancelled - Damage suffered by a passenger during her stay at the hotel providing the accommodation - Possibility of invoking the liability of the air carrier as a result of negligence on the part of employees of the hotel)
(2020/C 378/16)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH
Defendant: ON
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 9(1)(b) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the air carrier under that provision to offer hotel accommodation free of charge to the passengers referred to therein does not mean that that carrier is required to take care of the accommodation arrangements as such.
2.Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which, under Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation, has offered hotel accommodation to a passenger whose flight has been cancelled cannot be required, on the basis of that regulation alone, to compensate that passenger for damage caused by fault on the part of employees of that hotel.
(*)
OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.