22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/12

(Case C-658/13)

2014/C 85/20

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Wilhelm Spitzner and Maria-Luise Spitzner

Respondent: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred

1.Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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, to be interpreted as meaning that an extraordinary circumstance causing a delay to a flight also constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, within the meaning of that provision, for another, subsequent flight, in the case where the effect of the extraordinary circumstance causing a delay affects the later flight solely by reason of the operational organisation of the air carrier?

2.Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of avoidability relates, not to the extraordinary circumstances as such, but to the delay to or cancellation of the flight caused by those extraordinary circumstances?

3.Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that it is reasonable for air carriers which operate their flights in a so-called rotation system to factor in a minimum time reserve between flights, the length of which corresponds to the time spans laid down in Article 6(1)(a) to (c) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004?

4.Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that it is reasonable for air carriers which operate their flights in a so-called rotation system to deny boarding to passengers whose flight has already been significantly delayed due to an extraordinary event, or to transport such passengers later, in order to avoid a delay to subsequent flights?

* Language of the case: German.

OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.