OI v Air Nostrum (2020) C‑191/19 CJEU
European Court of Justice, Eighth Chamber
Facts
10 The applicant in the main proceedings made a reservation through the tour operator L’TUR Tourismus AG for connecting flights from Jerez de la Frontera (Spain) to Frankfurt am Main (Germany) via Madrid (Spain).
Those connecting flights, which gave rise to a single reservation, consisted of, first, Air Nostrum flight IB 8505 from Jerez de la Frontera to Madrid, scheduled to depart on 3 October 2015 at 13.35 and to land the same day at 14.45, and, second, flight number AB 5325 from Madrid to Frankfurt am Main, scheduled to depart on 3 October 2015 at 20.00 and to land the same day at 22.40.
11 The reservation of the applicant in the main proceedings was changed against her will, with the result that, in place of her seat on the first flight, flight IB 8505, she was given a seat on flight IB 8507, which took off from Jerez de la Frontera on 3 October 2015 at approximately 17.55 and landed in Madrid the same day at approximately 19.05.
12 The applicant in the main proceedings departed from Madrid at 20.00 on the connecting flight originally planned and arrived in Frankfurt am Main 10 minutes before the scheduled arrival time.
Issue(s)
17 In those circumstances, the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1) Does the change in reservation at check-in of a passenger, who has a confirmed reservation on a specific flight, to a later flight against that passenger’s will constitute denied boarding within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, if the flight on which the passenger had a confirmed reservation then goes ahead?
(2) If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 apply by analogy in the event of denied boarding within the meaning of Article 4(3) of that regulation?’
Discussion
21 It is not apparent from the order for reference that the applicant in the main proceedings did in fact present herself for check-in within the time limits laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 261/2004.
22 The Court is therefore unable to rule on whether a situation such as that which gave rise to the present dispute is capable of coming within the scope of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.
23 By contrast, it is common ground that the applicant in the main proceedings did travel by connecting flights since, despite the change affecting the first of the booked flights in her journey, she reached her final destination by means of the second of the flights in that journey which she had reserved.
24 Moreover, it is common ground that the question referred has arisen in proceedings for the award of compensation by the air carrier under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004.
25 Therefore, in view of those factors and in order to provide an answer that will assist the referring court in resolving the dispute before it, it is necessary to reformulate the first question and to consider that that question is asking, in essence, whether Regulation No 261/2004, and in particular Article 7 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a passenger who had a single reservation for connecting flights is entitled to compensation in the case where that reservation is amended against the passenger’s will, with the result that, first, the passenger did not board the first of his or her reserved flights even though that flight went ahead and, second, the passenger was given a seat on a later flight which allowed him or her to board the second of his or her reserved flights and thus to reach his or her final destination at the arrival time originally scheduled.
26 In this regard, it must be noted that a flight with one or more connections, booked as a single unit, constitutes a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for passengers provided for by Regulation No 261/2004 (see, to that effect, judgment of 31 May 2018, Wegener, C‑537/17, EU:C:2018:361, paragraphs 18 and 19).
27 The Court has thus drawn legal consequences from the position of the passenger in question at the end of his or her air journey, namely on arrival at his or her final destination, defined in Article 2(h) of Regulation No 261/2004 (see, to that effect, judgments of 31 May 2018, Wegener, C‑537/17, EU:C:2018:361, paragraph 17, and of 26 February 2013, Folkerts, C‑11/11, EU:C:2013:106, paragraphs 34 and 35).
28 In the case of connecting flights, that interpretation follows from the actual wording of that Article 2(h), according to which ‘alternative connecting flights available shall not be taken into account if the original planned arrival time is respected’.
29 As regards, more specifically, the right to compensation in the case of connecting flights, the Court has ruled that Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is payable to a passenger who arrived at his or her final destination at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 2013, Folkerts, C‑11/11, EU:C:2013:106, paragraph 47).
30 In the present case, it is common ground that the applicant in the main proceedings, at the end of her air journey, arrived at her final destination no later than the arrival time originally scheduled.
31 Consequently, she cannot benefit from the right to compensation on the basis of Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004.
32 It is true, first, as is apparent from recitals 1 and 2 thereof, that Regulation No 261/2004 seeks to remedy serious trouble and inconvenience befalling passengers during air travel and, second, that a change to a flight reservation results in inconvenience for the passenger concerned. However, such inconvenience cannot be regarded as ‘serious’, within the meaning of that regulation, in the case where the passenger arrives at his or her final destination at the arrival time originally scheduled.
33 In those circumstances, it would be contrary to the purpose of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide compensation for a passenger such as the applicant in the main proceedings under Article 7 of that regulation.
34 In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Regulation No 261/2004, and in particular Article 7 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that compensation is not payable to a passenger who had a single reservation for connecting flights in the case where that reservation was amended against the passenger’s will, with the result that, first, the passenger did not board the first of his or her reserved flights even though that flight went ahead and, second, the passenger was given a seat on a later flight which allowed him or her to board the second of his or her reserved flights and thus to reach his or her final destination at the arrival time originally scheduled.
35 In the light of the answer given to the first question, there is no need to answer the second question.
Useful for
Treaty provisions considered
No treaty provisions considered.Legislation considered
EU Regulation 261/2004/Key subjects or concepts
Connecting Flights/ Denied Boarding/Appeals history
13 The applicant in the main proceedings brought an action before the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Local Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) seeking compensation from Air Nostrum under Regulation No 261/2004 for the change, which had been made unilaterally. That court dismissed her action on the ground that she had reached her final destination within the time limits laid down by Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004.
14 The applicant in the main proceedings appealed against that decision to the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), taking the view that she was entitled to compensation for denied boarding under Regulation No 261/2004 and that such a right could not be subject to any of the restrictions provided for, in the event of cancellation of a flight, in Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of that regulation.
Other case information
Lawyers or counsel before the European Court of Justice, Eighth Chamber:No counsel or legal team identified for this case.
Additional case references or citations:
OI v Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA, Case C‑191/19, ECLI:EU:C:2020:339.
Do you have a suggestion, correction or update for this case?
