Air France SA v Folkerts (2013) C-11/11 CJEU (Grand Chamber); ECLI:EU:C:2013:106
Court of Justice of the European Union, Grand Chamber
Facts
16
Mrs Folkerts held a reservation to fly from Bremen to Asunción, via Paris and São Paulo.
17
In accordance with the original planning, Mrs Folkerts’ flight was scheduled to depart from Bremen on 16 May 2006 at 6.30 am and arrive in Asunción, her final destination, the same day at 11.30 pm.
18
The departure of the flight from Bremen to Paris, operated by the company Air France, was delayed and the aircraft took off only shortly before 9.00 am, that is a delay of approximately two and a half hours beyond the scheduled departure time. Mrs Folkerts, who already had her boarding cards for the entire journey on departure from Bremen, did not reach Paris until after Air France’s aircraft scheduled for the connecting flight to São Paulo had already departed. Mrs Folkerts was re-booked by Air France on to a later flight to São Paulo. Because of her late arrival in São Paulo, Mrs Folkerts missed the connecting flight to Asunción originally scheduled. She therefore did not arrive in Asunción until 17 May 2006 at 10.30 am, that is 11 hours after the arrival time originally scheduled.
19
At first instance and then on appeal, Air France was ordered to pay Mrs Folkerts damages, including, in particular, a sum of EUR 600 under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004.
20
Air France then brought an appeal on a point of law before the Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice).
21
The Bundesgerichtshof considers that the outcome of that action depends on whether Mrs Folkerts is entitled to compensation from Air France pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004.
22
The Bundesgerichtshof takes the view that Mrs Folkerts is entitled to compensation in the amount of EUR 600 only if the case-law of the Court of Justice (Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others [2009] ECR I-10923) – according to which passengers have the right to compensation under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 also in the event of long delay – is also applicable to cases where, although there was not yet any delay beyond the scheduled departure within the terms of Article 6(1) of that regulation, the final destination was nonetheless reached three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled.
23
Therefore, in the Bundesgerichtshof’s view, the question of whether the right to compensation advanced by Mrs Folkerts is well founded depends on whether Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 may be relied on even where there is no delay within the terms of Article 6(1) of that regulation. The Bundesgerichtshof takes the view that it is not clear from the grounds of the judgment in Sturgeon and Others whether, for the purpose of entitlement to compensation under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, the length of the delay in reaching the final destination alone is determinant or whether entitlement to compensation for such a delay additionally requires that the conditions set out in Article 6(1) of that regulation be met, that is to say, that the departure of the flight in question was already delayed beyond the limits set out in Article 6(1).
Issue(s)
24
In those circumstances the Bundesgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)
Does a passenger have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 in the case where departure of his flight was delayed for a period which is below the limits specified in Article 6(1) of that regulation, but arrival at the final destination was at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time?
(2)
If the first question is answered in the negative:
For the purpose of determining whether there was a delay, within the terms of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 261/2004, in the case of a flight consisting of several stages, should reference be made to the individual stages or to the distance to the final destination?’
Discussion
34
The concept of ‘final destination’ is defined in Article 2(h) of Regulation No 261/2004 as being the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight.
35
It follows that, in the case of directly connecting flights, it is only the delay beyond the scheduled time of arrival at the final destination, understood as the destination of the last flight taken by the passenger concerned, which is relevant for the purposes of the fixed compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004.
36
In the third place, Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, which refers to the delay to a flight beyond its scheduled time of departure, seeks, according to its own terms, only to establish the conditions giving entitlement to the measures of assistance and care provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of that regulation respectively.
37
If follows that the fixed compensation to which a passenger is entitled under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, when his flight reaches the final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time, is not dependent on the conditions laid down in Article 6 of that regulation being met.
38
Accordingly, the fact that a flight such as that at issue in the main proceedings has not been delayed, as regards the scheduled departure time, beyond the limits set out in Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, cannot affect the obligation on air carriers to compensate the passengers of such a flight, provided that the arrival of that flight at the final destination has been delayed by three hours or more.
39
The opposite approach would constitute an unjustified difference in treatment, inasmuch as it would effectively treat passengers of flights arriving at their final destination three hours or more after the scheduled arrival time differently depending on whether their flights were delayed beyond the scheduled departure time by more than the limits set out in Article 6 of Regulation No 261/2004, even though their inconvenience linked to an irreversible loss of time is identical.
40
In the fourth place, at the hearing certain statistical data were referred to, in particular by the European Commission, concerning, first, the substantial volume of connecting fights transporting passengers through European airspace and, second, the recurrent nature of delays of at least three hours in arriving at the final destination affecting such flights, attributable to the connections missed by the passengers concerned.
41
In that regard, it is true that the obligation to pay compensation to the passengers of the flights in question in the fixed amounts laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 entails certain financial consequences for air carriers (see, to that effect, Nelson and Others, paragraph 76).
42
However, it must be emphasised, first, that those financial consequences cannot be considered disproportionate to the aim of ensuring a high level of protection for air passengers (Nelson and Others, paragraph 76) and, second, that the real extent of those consequences is likely to be mitigated in the light of the three factors set out below.
43
First of all, it should be noted that air carriers are not obliged to pay compensation if they can prove that the cancellation or long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, that is, circumstances which are beyond the air carrier’s actual control (Case C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann [2008] ECR I-11061, paragraph 34, and Nelson and Others, paragraph 79).
44
Next, it must be noted that the discharge of obligations pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 is without prejudice to air carriers’ rights to seek compensation from any person who caused the delay, including third parties, as Article 13 of Regulation No 261/2004 provides (Nelson and Others, paragraph 80).
45
In addition, the amount of compensation, fixed at EUR 250, 400 and 600 depending on the distance of the flights concerned, may still be reduced by 50% in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, where the delay is – in the case of a flight not falling under subparagraphs (a) or (b) of Article 7(2) – less than four hours (Sturgeon and Others, paragraph 63, and Nelson and Others, paragraph 78).
46
Lastly, in any event, the case-law shows that the importance of the objective of consumer protection, which therefore includes the protection of air passengers, may justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain economic operators (Nelson and Others, paragraph 81, and case-law cited).
47
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is that Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is payable, on the basis of that article, to a passenger on directly connecting flights who has been delayed at departure for a period below the limits specified in Article 6 of that regulation, but has arrived at his final destination at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time, given that the compensation in question is not conditional upon there having been a delay at departure and, thus, upon the conditions set out in Article 6 having been met.
