Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 26 April 2022 – DZ, EO, YV, YE, MP v Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-283/22)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: DZ, EO, YV, YE, MP

Defendant: Ministerstvo vnútra Slovenskej republiky

Questions referred

Must Article 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 ¹ of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators be interpreted as meaning that a person

–    who is not on board a helicopter of a [Union] air carrier, but who is suspended from a hoist cable as an integral piece of equipment (or component) of the helicopter while the helicopter is in flight and who was lifted along with the ascent of the helicopter (as a result of being suspended from the hoist cable);

–    who was transported as part of a free transport operation provided by the State (a State helicopter used in police services) as a carrier under a ‘carriage contract’ between the air carrier (State) and the employer of the person performing a special task (namely, on the basis of an uznesenie vlády Slovenskej republiky č. 411/2006 Z.z., of 10. mája 2006 k návrhu zásad vykonávania letov lietadiel v policajných službách (Decree No 411/2006 of the Government of the Slovak Republic of 10 May 2006 on the proposed arrangements for the implementation of air flights in police services) and the nariade Ministerstva vnútra Slovenskej republiky č. 50/2012 zo dňa 14 March 2012 o vyžadovaní a schvaľovaní letov (Decree No 50/2012 of the Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic of 14 March 2012 on the need for flights and their approval), which provided that the aircraft of the air carrier would perform flights in order to ensure the performance of the tasks of the employer of the person concerned];

–    the purpose of the carriage was to perform a special task such as that at issue in the main proceedings {performance of a service task consisting in the specialised training of officers of the Hasičský a záchranný zbor (fire-fighting and rescue unit) using aerial equipment (helicopter) in the form of a crane hoisting exercise for rescuer and [rescued]},

and

–    who was participating in a task as a trainee member of a firefighting module attached to the helicopter by means of a hoist cable as an integral piece of equipment (or component) of the helicopter on the instructions of the helicopter’s pilot and operator, and was to be hoisted aboard the helicopter during the flight,

is a passenger

or

a member of the flight crew or cabin crew?

Must Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 pursuant to Article 300(2) EC and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC ¹ of 5 April 2001, be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances set out in the first question, such person is deemed to be:

a passenger

or

a member of the flight crew or a member of the cabin crew?

Can the use of the State helicopter on 10 May 2017 be regarded as carriage within the meaning of Article 2(1) [and] Article 1 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 pursuant to Article 300(2) EC and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001?

____________

¹ OJ 2004 L 138, p. 1, Special edition in Slovak: Chapter 07 Volume 008 P. 160.

¹ 2001/539/EC: Council Decision of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38, Special edition in Slovak: Chapter 07 Volume 005 P. 491).