Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (2012) C–22/11 CJEU (3rd Chamber); ECLI:EU:C:2012:604

European Court of Justice, Third Chamber

Facts

12 Following a strike by staff at Barcelona Airport on 28 July 2006, the scheduled 11.40 flight from Barcelona to Helsinki operated by Finnair had to be cancelled. In order that the passengers on that flight should not have too long a waiting time, Finnair decided to reschedule subsequent flights.

13 Accordingly, those passengers from the flight in question were taken to Helsinki on the 11.40 flight the following day, 29 July 2006, and also on a specially arranged flight departing later that day at 21.40. The consequence of that rescheduling was that some of the passengers who had bought their tickets for the 11.40 flight on 29 July 2006 had to wait until 30 July 2006 to go to Helsinki on the scheduled 11.40 flight and on a 21.40 flight specially arranged for the occasion. Similarly, some passengers, like Mr Lassooy, who had bought their tickets for the 11.40 flight on 30 July 2006 and who had duly presented themselves for boarding, went to Helsinki on the special 21.40 flight later that day.

14 Taking the view that Finnair had for no valid reason denied him boarding, within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 261/2004, Mr Lassooy brought an action before the Helsingin käräjäoikeus (Helsinki District Court) for an order against Finnair to pay him the compensation provided for in Article 7(1)(b) of that regulation. By decision of 19 December 2008, the Helsingin käräjäoikeus dismissed Mr Lassooy’s application for compensation on the ground that the regulation only concerned compensation where boarding is denied as a result of overbooking for economic reasons. That court held that Article 4 of Regulation No 261/2004 did not apply in this case, since the airline company had rescheduled its flights as a result of a strike at Barcelona airport and that strike amounted to an extraordinary circumstance in respect of which Finnair had taken all the measures that could be required of it.

Issue(s)

The issues were, in essence:

1. Does the concept of “denied boarding” include circumstances where a passenger is denied boarding for operational reasons?
2. Can circumstances resulting from and after “extraordinary circumstances” justify a carrier in denying boarding to a passenger, and thereby exempt the carrier from being liable to pay compensation?

Discussion

On the first issue, see paras 22 to 26:

22 In so doing, the EU legislature expanded the scope of the definition of ‘denied boarding’ beyond merely situations where boarding is denied on account of overbooking referred to previously in Article 1 of Regulation No 295/91, and construed ‘denied boarding’ broadly as covering all circumstances in which an air carrier might refuse to carry a passenger.

23 That interpretation is supported by the finding that limiting the scope of ‘denied boarding’ exclusively to cases of overbooking would have the practical effect of substantially reducing the protection afforded to passengers under Regulation No 261/2004 and would therefore be contrary to the aim of that regulation – referred to in recital 1 in the preamble thereto – of ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Consequently, a broad interpretation of the rights granted to passengers is justified (see, to that effect, Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2006] ECR I-403, paragraph 69, and C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann [2008] ECR I-11061, paragraph 18).

24 As the Advocate General observed in point 37 of his Opinion, to accept that only situations of overbooking are covered by the concept of ‘denied boarding’ would have the effect of denying all protection to passengers who, like the applicant in the main proceedings, find themselves in a situation for which, as in the case of overbooking for economic reasons, they are not responsible, by precluding them from relying on Article 4 of Regulation No 261/2004; paragraph 3 of that Article refers to the provisions of that regulation relating to rights to compensation, reimbursement or re-routing and to care, as laid down in Articles 7 to 9 of that regulation.

25 Consequently, an air carrier’s refusal to allow the boarding of a passenger who has presented himself for boarding in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 261/2004, on the basis that the flights arranged by that carrier have been rescheduled, must be characterised as ‘denied boarding’ within the meaning of Article 2(j) of that regulation.

26 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that the concept of ‘denied boarding’, within the meaning of Articles 2(j) and 4 of Regulation No 261/2004, must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons.

On the second issue, see paras 34 to 40:

34 It cannot be accepted that an air carrier may, relying on the interest of other passengers in being transported within a reasonable time, increase considerably the situations in which it would have reasonable grounds for denying a passenger boarding. That would necessarily have the consequence of depriving such a passenger of all protection, which would be contrary to the objective of Regulation No 261/2004 which seeks to ensure a high level of protection for passengers by means of a broad interpretation of the rights granted to them.

35 In the second place, the referring court asks the Court of Justice whether an air carrier may be exempted from its obligation to compensate a passenger for ‘denied boarding’, laid down in Articles 4(3) and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, on the ground that boarding is denied due to the rescheduling of that carrier’s flights as a result of ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

36 In that connection, it is to be noted that, unlike Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, Articles 2(j) and 4 of that regulation do not provide that, in the event of ‘denied boarding’ owing to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, an air carrier is exempted from its obligation to compensate passengers denied boarding against their will (see, by analogy, IATA and ELFAA, paragraph 37). It follows that the EU legislature did not intend that compensation may be precluded on grounds relating to the occurrence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

37 In addition, it is apparent from recital 15 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004 that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ may relate only to ‘a particular aircraft on a particular day’, which cannot apply to a passenger denied boarding because of the rescheduling of flights as a result of extraordinary circumstances affecting an earlier flight. The concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ is intended to limit the obligations of an air carrier — or even exempt it from those obligations — when the event in question could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. As the Advocate General observed in point 53 of his Opinion, if such a carrier is obliged to cancel a scheduled flight on the day of a strike by airport staff and then takes the decision to reschedule its later flights, that carrier cannot in any way be considered to be constrained by that strike to deny boarding to a passenger who has duly presented himself for boarding two days after the flight’s cancellation.

38 Consequently, having regard to the requirement to interpret strictly the derogations from provisions granting rights to passengers, which follows from the settled case-law of the Court (see, to that effect, Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited), an air carrier cannot be exempted from its obligation to pay compensation in the event of ‘denied boarding’ on the ground that its flights were rescheduled as a result of ‘extraordinary circumstances’.

39 Furthermore, it must be reiterated that the discharge of obligations by air carriers pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004 is without prejudice to their rights to seek compensation from any person who has caused the ‘denied boarding’, including third parties, as Article 13 of the regulation provides. Such compensation accordingly may reduce or even remove the financial burden borne by the air carriers in consequence of those obligations (IATA and ELFAA, paragraph 90).

40 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second and third questions is that Articles 2(j) and 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.

Useful for

Treaty provisions considered

No treaty provisions considered.

Legislation considered

EU Regulation 261/2004/

Key subjects or concepts

Local Law on Consumers/

Appeals history

No relevant appeals or appeal history identified for this case.

Other case information

Lawyers or counsel before the European Court of Justice, Third Chamber:
No counsel or legal team identified for this case.

Additional case references or citations:
No additional references or citations identified for this case.

Do you have a suggestion, correction or update for this case?