Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Pontevedra (Spain)) - Aurora Sousa Rodríguez, Yago López Sousa, Rodrigo Manuel Puga Lueiro, Luis Ángel Rodríguez González, María del Mar Pato Barreiro, Manuel López Alonso, Yaiza Pato Rodríguez v Air France SA
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 2(1) - Compensation for passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight - Meaning of 'cancellation' - Article 12 - Meaning of 'further compensation' - Compensation under national law)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Pontevedra
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Aurora Sousa Rodríguez, Yago López Sousa, Rodrigo Manuel Puga Lueiro, Luis Ángel Rodríguez González, María del Mar Pato Barreiro, Manuel López Alonso, Yaiza Pato Rodríguez
Defendant: Air France SA
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Pontevedra - Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 8, 9 and 12 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) - Meaning of 'cancellation of a flight' - Technical faults - Meaning of 'further compensation' - Right to compensation under national law
Operative part of the judgment
'Cancellation', as defined in Article 2(1) 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, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it does not refer only to the situation in which the aeroplane in question fails to take off at all, but also covers the case in which that aeroplane took off but, for whatever reason, was subsequently forced to return to the airport of departure where the passengers of the said aeroplane were transferred to other flights.
The meaning of 'further compensation', used in Article 12 of Regulation No 261/2004, must be interpreted to the effect that it allows the national court to award compensation, under the conditions provided for by the Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air or national law, for damage, including non-material damage, arising from breach of a contract of carriage by air. On the other hand, that meaning of 'further compensation' may not be the legal basis for the national court to order an air carrier to reimburse to passengers whose flight has been delayed or cancelled the expenses the latter have had to incur because of the failure of that carrier to fulfil its obligations to assist and provide care under Article 8 and Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004.
____________1 - OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.