- 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-257/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Corina van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Passengers’ rights in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Denied boarding and cancellation — Long flight delay — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Extraordinary circumstances)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0257
62014CA0257
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
9.11.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 371/11
(Case C-257/14) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Passengers’ rights in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Denied boarding and cancellation - Long flight delay - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Extraordinary circumstances))
(2015/C 371/13)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Corina van der Lans
Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
Operative part of the judgment
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 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which occurred unexpectedly, which is not attributable to poor maintenance and which was also not detected during routine maintenance checks, does not fall within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.
* Language of the case: Dutch.
(1) OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.