European Law – Cases

References to judgments and opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union have been provided here. The links for each case will take you to the European database of BAILII. Alternatively, judgments and opinions may also be found using the case-law search form of the European Union.

 


 

2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010

2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000

1999 | 1997


2016

Heli-Flight v EASA
C-61/15, CJEU, 28 January 2016

Pourvoi – Aviation civile – Demandes d’approbation des conditions de vol présentées – Décision de l’Agence européenne de la sécurité aérienne – Rejet d’une demande – Procédure administrative précontentieuse obligatoire – Possibilité d’un recours devant le juge de l’Union européenne – Office du juge – Adoption de mesures d’organisation de la procédure – Obligation – Appréciations techniques complexes

 

2015

Air France-KLM, formerly Air France (C‑250/14), Hop!-Brit Air SAS, formerly Brit Air (C‑289/14) v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics
Joined Cases C‑250/14 and C‑289/14, CJEU, 23 December 2015

VAT — Chargeable event and chargeability — Air transport — Ticket purchased but not used — Provision of the transport service — Issue of the ticket — Time of payment of the tax

The requests for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended.

The requests were made in proceedings between Air France-KLM, formerly Air France, and Hop!-Brit Air SAS, formerly Brit Air, on the one hand, and the Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics, on the other hand, concerning the liability to value added tax (VAT) of an unused transport ticket and of sums paid by an airline company to an undertaking carrying on the same type of business in consideration for the sale of unused transport tickets.

The Court ruled:
1. Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/59/EC of 17 June 1999, then by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the issue by an airline company of tickets is subject to value added tax where the tickets issued have not been used by passengers and the latter are unable to obtain a refund for those tickets.

2. Article 2(1) and the first and second subparagraphs of Article 10(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 1999/59, then by Directive 2001/115, must be interpreted as meaning that the value added tax paid when the air ticket was purchased by a passenger who has not used it becomes chargeable on receipt of payment of the ticket price, whether by the airline company itself, by a third party acting in its name and on its behalf, or by a third party acting in its own name but on behalf of the airline company.

3. Articles 2(1) and 10(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 1999/59, then by Directive 2001/115, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that a third party sells an airline company’s tickets on behalf of that company in the context of a franchise agreement and pays that company, in respect of tickets issued and no longer valid, a lump sum calculated as a percentage of the annual turnover from the corresponding flight routes, that sum constitutes a sum that is taxable as consideration for those tickets.

 

SAS Cargo Group and Others v Commission
Case T‑56/11, CJEU, 16 December 2015

Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons

The Court annuled Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerned SAS Cargo Group A/S, Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden and SAS AB.

 

Euroatlantic Airways – Transportes Aéreos, S.A. v. Portugal – 34676/13 [2015] ECHR 1077
European Court of Human Rights
Court (Fourth Section Committee)
08 December 2015

The case concerned a dispute between the applicant and an Israeli company over the execution of a wet lease contract pursuant to which the applicant undertook, in 2007, to lend an aircraft to the latter. The legal proceedings took over 5 years. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considered that the Government had not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Martins Castro and Alves Correia de Castro v. Portugal, no. 33729/06, 10 June 2008), the Court considered that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There had accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

 

Eleonore Prüller-Frey v Norbert Brodnig and Axa Versicherung AG
C-240/14, CJEU, 9 September 2015

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air carrier liability in the event of accidents — Action for damages — Montreal Convention — Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 — Flight operated free of charge by the owner of a property in order to show that property to a prospective purchaser — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 — Direct action provided for by national law against the civil-liability insurer

Non-applicability of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention to a non-paying passenger on a flight with the purpose of surveying a property. Direct action against insurer permitted.

The Court held:

1. Article 2(1)(a) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002, and Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a determination on the basis of Article 17 of that Convention of a claim for damages brought by a person who — whilst she (i) was a passenger in an aircraft that had the same place of take-off and landing in a Member State and (ii) was being carried free of charge for the purpose of viewing from the air a property in connection with a property transaction planned with the pilot of that aircraft — was physically injured when the aircraft crashed.

2. Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that of the case before the referring court, a person who has suffered damage is entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer of the person liable to provide compensation, where such an action is provided for by the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation, regardless of the provision made by the law that the parties have chosen as the law applicable to the insurance contract.

 

Corina van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
C-257/14, CJEU, 17 September 2015

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Passengers’ rights in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Denied boarding and cancellation — Long flight delay — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Extraordinary circumstances

The Court held Article 5(3) 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 a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which occurred unexpectedly, which is not attributable to poor maintenance and which was also not detected during routine maintenance checks, does not fall within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

 

easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
T-608/13, CJEU, 13 May 2015

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark easyAir-tours — Earlier national figurative mark airtours Ticket Factory — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No similarity between the signs — No likelihood of confusion — Power to alter decisions — Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009

The General Court:
1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1029/2012-1);
2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;
3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by easyGroup IP Licensing Ltd;
4. Orders Tui AG to bear its own costs.

 

Niki Luftfahrt GmbH v Commission européenne
T-511/09, CJEU, 13 May 2015

Aides d’État – Aide à la restructuration accordée par l’Autriche en faveur du groupe Austrian Airlines – Décision déclarant l’aide compatible avec le marché commun, sous réserve du respect de certaines conditions – Privatisation du groupe Austrian Airlines – Détermination du bénéficiaire de l’aide – Lignes directrices pour les aides d’État au sauvetage et à la restructuration des entreprises en difficulté

Le Tribunal déclare et arrête:
1) Le recours est rejeté.
2) Niki Luftfahrt GmbH supportera, outre ses propres dépens, ceux exposés par la Commission européenne, par Österreichische Industrieholding AG, par Deutsche Lufthansa AG et par Austrian Airlines AG.
3) La République d’Autriche supportera ses propres dépens.

 

Niki Luftfahrt GmbH v Commission européenne
T-162/10, CJEU, 13 May 2015

Concurrence – Concentrations – Transport aérien – Décision déclarant la concentration compatible avec le marché commun – Appréciation des effets de l’opération sur la concurrence – Engagements

Le Tribunal déclare et arrête:
1) Le recours est rejeté.
2) Niki Luftfahrt GmbH supportera, outre ses propres dépens, ceux exposés par la Commission européenne, par Österreichische Industrieholding AG et par Deutsche Lufthansa AG.
3) La République d’Autriche supportera ses propres dépens.

 

Wucher Helicopter GmbH and Euro-Aviation Versicherung AG v Fridolin Santer
C-6/14, CJEU, 26 February 2015

References for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 — Air carriers and aircraft operators — Insurance — Requirements — Definitions of ‘passenger’ and ‘member of the crew’ — Helicopter — Carriage of an expert in the blasting of avalanches using explosives — Injury suffered during a work flight — Compensation

The request for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators and Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (‘the Montreal Convention’).

The request was made in ‘revision’ proceedings between Wucher Helicopter GmbH, an Austrian air carrier (‘Wucher’) and Euro-Aviation Versicherungs AG (‘Euro-Aviation’), a German insurance company and Mr Santer, concerning compensation for Mr Santer for an injury suffered in an accident which occurred on a flight.

The Oberster Gerichtshof referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is Article 3(g) of [Regulation No 785/2004] to be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier,
– who is carried on a contractual basis (specifically: a contract between the air carrier and the occupant’s employer),
– but who is carried for the purpose of a particular job of work (specifically: the blasting of avalanches)
and
– who is involved in that operation as a “guide familiar with the terrain” and must at the pilot’s direction open the helicopter door during the flight and then hold it open in a particular manner and for a particular period of time,

(a) is a “passenger”
or
(b) ranks among “on-duty members of both the flight crew and the cabin crew”?

2. If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 17(1) of the [Montreal Convention] to be interpreted as meaning that the term “passenger” (German: “Reisender”) in any event includes a “passenger” (German: “Fluggast”) within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004?

3. If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

Is Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention to be interpreted as meaning that under the conditions stated in Question 1 the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier is a “passenger” (“Reisender”)?’

The CJEU held:
1. Article 3(g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators must be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter held by a Community air carrier, who is carried on the basis of a contract between that air carrier and the occupant’s employer in order to perform a specific task, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is a ‘passenger’ within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 17 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 on the basis of Article 300(2) EC, approved on behalf of the EC by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that a person who comes within the definition of ‘passenger’ within the meaning of Article 3(g) of Regulation No 785/2004, also comes within the definition of ‘passenger’ within the meaning of Article 17 of that convention, once that person has been carried on the basis of a ‘contract of carriage’ within the meaning of Article 3 of that convention.

 

Aer Lingus Ltd v European Commission
T-473/12, CJEU, 5 February 2015

State aid — Irish tax on air passengers — Lower rate for destinations no more than 300 km from Dublin — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Selective nature — Identification of the beneficiaries of the aid — Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Obligation to state reasons

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) concerning differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland.

Application granted. Article 4 of Commission Decision 2013/199/EU of 25 July 2012 on State aid Case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland, in so far as it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries for an amount which is set at EUR 8 per passenger in recital 70 of that decision annuled.

 

European Commission v Council of the European Union C-28/12

Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 29 January 2015

Action for annulment — Article 218 TFEU — Decision on the signing and provisional application of international agreements — Hybrid decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States — Alternative procedure — Voting rules — Obligation of sincere cooperation — Principle of the organisational autonomy of the institutions — Unified representation of the European Union

Application for annulment of Decision 2011/708/EU, adopted on 16 June 2011 by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council on the signing on behalf of the EU and provisional application by the EU and its Member States of two international agreements in the field of air transport.

The Advocate General proposed that the CJEU should:

1) annul Decision 2011/708/EU of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council of 16 June 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part; and on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Ancillary Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, of the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, on the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part;

2) maintain the effects of Decision 2011/708 until the adoption of a new decision;

3) order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

4) order the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

 

easyJet Airline Co Ltd v European Commission
T-355/13, CJEU, 21 January 2015

Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Airport services market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Case dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State — Rejection of the complaint on priority grounds — Decision of the competition authority drawing conclusions, in competition law, from an investigation conducted under national legislation applicable to the sector in question — Obligation to state reasons

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 2727 final of 3 May 2013 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant (easyJet) against Luchthaven Schiphol NV in relation to alleged anti-competitive conduct in the airport services market (Case COMP/39.869 — easyJet/Schiphol).

Application dismissed.

 

Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V.
C-573/13, CJEU, 15 January 2015

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 — Air services — Second sentence of Article 23(1) — Price transparency — Computerised booking system — Air fares — Indication at all times of the final price

Request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community. The request was made in proceedings between Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG (‘Air Berlin’), an air carrier, and the Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V. (Federal Union of Consumer Organisations and Associations; ‘the Bundesverband’) concerning the way in which air fares are presented in the computerised booking system of Air Berlin.

The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) referred the following questions to the CJEU:
(1) Is the second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that the final price to be paid must, in the context of a computerised booking system, be indicated when the prices of air services are shown for the first time?

(2) Is the second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that the final price to be paid must, in the context of a computerised booking system, be indicated only for the air service specifically selected by the customer or for each air service shown?

The CJEU held:
1. The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated whenever the prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time.

2. The second sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised booking system such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the final price to be paid must be indicated not only for the air service specifically selected by the customer, but also for each air service in respect of which the fare is shown.

 

Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV
C-30/14, CJEU, 15 January 2015

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Database not protected by copyright or the sui generis right — Contractual limitation on the rights of users of the database

Request for a preliminary ruling in proceedings between Ryanair Ltd (‘Ryanair’) and PR Aviation BV (‘PR Aviation’) concerning the use by the latter, for commercial purposes, of data from Ryanair’s website.

The CJEU held:
Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to a database which is not protected either by copyright or by the sui generis right under that directive, so that Articles 6(1), 8 and 15 of that directive do not preclude the author of such a database from laying down contractual limitations on its use by third parties, without prejudice to the applicable national law.

2014

Ryanair v Commission
T-512/11, CJEU, 25 November 2014

State aid — Aviation sector — Irish air travel tax — Exemption for transit and transfer passengers — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to open the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Procedural rights of parties concerned

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2011) 4932 final of 13 July 2011 in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transit and transfer passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU (State aid SA.29064 (2011C ex 2011/NN)).

Commission Decision annulled.

 

U v Stadt Karlsruhe
C-101/13, CJEU, 2 October 2014

Area of freedom, security and justice – Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 – Document 9303 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), Part 1 – Minimum security standards for passports and travel documents issued by the Member States – Machine readable passport – Inclusion of the birth name on the personal data page of the passport – Name to appear in a form not liable to give rise to confusion

Request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended, where the City of Karlsruhe refused to alter the form in which Mr U’s birth name appeared in his German passport.

The CJEU held:
1. The Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 must be interpreted as requiring the machine readable personal data page of passports issued by the Member States to satisfy all the compulsory specifications provided for by Part 1 of Document 9303 of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

2. The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, must be interpreted, where the law of a Member State provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname, as not precluding that State from being entitled nevertheless to enter the birth name either as a primary identifier in Field 06 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport or as a secondary identifier in Field 07 of that page or in a single field composed of Fields 06 and 07.

3. The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with the provisions of International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, Section IV, point 8.6, must be interpreted, where the law of a Member State provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname, as precluding that State from being entitled to enter the birth name as an optional item of personal date in Field 13 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport.

4. The Annex to Regulation No 2252/2004, as amended by Regulation No 444/2009, read in conjunction with International Civil Aviation Organisation Document 9303, Part 1, must be interpreted, in the light of Article 7 of the Charter, as meaning that, where a Member State whose law provides that a person’s name comprises his forenames and surname chooses nevertheless to include the birth name of the passport holder in Fields 06 and/or 07 of the machine readable personal data page of the passport, that State is required to state clearly in the caption of those fields that the birth name is entered there.

 

Vueling Airlines v Instituto Galego de Consumo de la Xunta de Galicia
C-487/12, CJEU, 18 September 2014

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air Transport – Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union – Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 – Pricing freedom – Checking in baggage – Price supplement – Concept of ‘air fares’ – Consumer protection – Imposition of a fine on an air carrier for an unfair contract term – National law requiring the carriage of passenger and checked-in baggage to be included in the base price of a plane ticket – Whether compatible with EU law

The request for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community.

Article 22 provides ‘…Community air carriers and, on the basis of reciprocity, air carriers of third countries shall freely set air fares and air rates for intra-Community air services.’

Article 97 of Law 48/1960 on air navigation (Spanish law) provides ‘‘As part of the price of the ticket, the carrier is required to carry passengers and their baggage, subject to weight limits established by regulation, irrespective of the number of items and their size.

Separate provisions shall govern excess baggage.

For these purposes, baggage does not include objects and items of hand baggage carried by passengers themselves. The carrier is required to carry free of charge in the cabin, as hand baggage, objects and items carried by passengers themselves, including items purchased in airport shops. The carrier may refuse to allow such objects and items on board only on grounds of security, weight or size of the object in relation to the characteristics of the aircraft.’

The following question was referred to the CJEU:
‘Is Article 22(1) of [Regulation No 1008/2008] to be interpreted as precluding a national rule (Article 97 of Law 48/1960) that requires passenger airlines to grant passengers the right always to check in a suitcase without paying a supplement or surcharge on top of the base price of the ticket purchased?’

The CJEU held that:
Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008 must be interpreted as precluding a national law that requires air carriers to carry, in all circumstances, not only the passenger, but also baggage checked in by him, provided that the baggage complies with certain requirements as regards, in particular, its weight, for the price of the plane ticket and without it being possible to charge any price supplement to carry such baggage.

 

European Commission v Portuguese Republic
C-277/13, CJEU, 11 September 2014

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/67/EC — Article 11 — Air transport — Groundhandling service — Selection of suppliers

The CJEU declared that, by failing to take the necessary measures for the organisation of a procedure for the selection of suppliers authorised to provide groundhandling services in the categories of ‘baggage handling’, ‘ramp handling’ and ‘freight and mail handling’ at Lisbon, Porto and Faro airports, in accordance with Article 11 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports, the Portuguese Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under that Article 11.

 

Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning
C-452/13, CJEU, 4 September 2014

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 2, 5 and 7 – Right to compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight – Length of delay – Concept of ‘arrival time’

The request for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of the concept of ‘arrival time’ within the meaning of Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights.

The Regional Court, Salzburg referred the following question to the CJEU:

‘What time is relevant for the term “time of arrival” used in Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation [No 261/2004]:
(a) the time that the aircraft lands on the runway (“touchdown”);
(b) the time that the aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or the chocks have been applied (“in-block time”);
(c) the time that the aircraft door is opened;
(d) a time defined by the parties in the context of party autonomy?’

The Court held:
Articles 2, 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘arrival time’, which is used to determine the length of the delay to which passengers on a flight have been subject, refers to the time at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened, the assumption being that, at that moment, the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft.

 

Air Baltic Corporation C-575/12

Judgment of the CJEU, 4 September 2014

Opinion of AG Paolo Mengozzi, 21 May 2014 [French]

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 – Articles 24(1) and 34 – Uniform visa – Annulment or revocation of a uniform visa – Validity of a uniform visa affixed to a travel document which has been cancelled – Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 – Articles 5(1) and 13(1) – Border checks – Entry conditions – National legislation requiring a valid visa affixed to a valid travel document

The airline complains about a penalty imposed on them by the Latvian authorities because they transported into the EU an Indian citizen with a valid passport not containing a visa, and an invalid passport containing a visa.

The CJEU held:
1. On a proper construction of Articles 24(1) and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), the cancellation of a travel document by an authority of a third country does not mean that the uniform visa affixed to that document is automatically invalidated.

2. On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 265/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 March 2010, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) of Regulation No 562/2006, the entry of third-country nationals into the territory of Member States is not subject to the condition that, at the border check, the valid visa presented must necessarily be affixed to a valid travel document.

3. Article 5(1) of Regulation No 562/2006, as amended by Regulation No 265/2010, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) of Regulation No 562/2006, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the entry of third-country nationals to the territory of the Member State concerned subject to the condition that, at the border check, the valid visa presented must necessarily be affixed to a valid travel document.

 

International Jet Management

Case C-628/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 18 March 2014

EU – discrimination – operating licences

Article 18 TFEU, which enshrines the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, is applicable to a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a first Member State requires an air carrier holding an operating licence issued by a second Member State to obtain an authorisation to enter the airspace of the first Member State to operate private flights in non-scheduled traffic from a third country to that first Member State, although such an authorisation is not required for air carriers holding an operating licence issued by that first Member State.

Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a first Member State which requires, on pain of a fine, an air carrier holding an operating licence issued by a second Member State to obtain an authorisation to enter the airspace of the first Member State to operate private flights in non-scheduled traffic from a third country to that first Member State, although such an authorisation is not required for air carriers holding an operating licence issued by that first Member State, and which makes the grant of that authorisation subject to production of a declaration confirming that the air carriers holding an operating licence issued by that first Member State are either not willing to operate those flights or are prevented from operating them.

2013

European Commission v Ryanair Ltd

Case C-615/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 16 May 2013

Appeal – Action for failure to act – Article 232 EC – Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 – Article 20(2) – State aid allegedly granted to Italian airlines – Complaint – Lack of a decision from the Commission

 

Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat

Case C-244/12, Court of Justice of the European Union, 21 March 2013

Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 85/337/EEC– Articles 2(1) and 4(2) – Projects listed in Annex II – Extension works to the infrastructure of an airport – Examination on the basis of thresholds or criteria – Article 4(3) – Selection criteria – Annex III, point 2(g) – Densely populated areas

 

Swiss Confederation v Commission

C-547/10, Court of Justice of the European Union, 7 March 2013
Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen, 13 September 2012

Appeal – Actions for annulment – Swiss Confederation – Admissibility – Locus standi – Examination of the Court’s own motion – EC-Switzerland Agreement on Air Transport – Objectives of the agreement – Exchange of traffic rights – Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 – Access of Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes – Articles 8 and 9 – Scope – Commission’s powers of review – Exercise of traffic rights – Decision 2004/12/EC – German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich Airport – Principles inherent in the freedom to provide services – Principle of non-discrimination – Proportionality

 

Air France SA v Heinz-Gerke Folkerts

Case C-11/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 26 February 2013

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 6 and 7 – Connecting flight(s) – Delay in arrival at the final destination – Delay equal to or in excess of three hours – A passenger’s right to compensation

 

Denise McDonagh v Ryanair Ltd

Case C-12/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 31 January 2013

Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Obligation to provide assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight due to ‘extraordinary circumstances’ – Volcanic eruption leading to the closure of air space – Eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull

2012

Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG v European Commission

Case C-288/11 P, Court of Justice of the European Union, 19 December 2012

Appeal – State aids – Concept of ‘undertaking’ – Economic activity – Airport infrastructure construction – Runway

 

Pedro Espada Oviedo v Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana SA

Case C-410/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 22 November 2012

Air transport – Montreal Convention – Article 22(2) – Liability of carriers in respect of baggage – Limits of liability in the event of the destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage – Shared baggage belonging to a number of passengers – Baggage checked in by one of those passengers

 

Joan Cuadrench More v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Case C-139/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 22 November 2012

Air transport – Compensation and assistance to passengers – Denied boarding and cancellation or long delays of flights – Period allowed for commencing proceedings

 

Ipourgos Metaforon kai Epikinonion v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon

Case C-271/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 8 November 2012

Air transport – Regulation No 2042/2003 – Technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation – Continuing airworthiness of aircraft – Approval of members of staff involved in tasks of inspection – Qualifications required

 

International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority

Joined cases of Emeka Nelson, Bill Chinazo Nelson, Brian Cheimezie Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, and TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association, The Queen v Civil Aviation Authority

Joined Cases C‑581/10 and 629/10, Court of Justice of the European Union, 23 October 2012
Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 15 May 2012

Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 5 to 7 – Montreal Convention – Articles 19 and 29 – Right to compensation in the event of delay of flights – Compatibility

These were two references for a preliminary ruling under article 267 TFEU from the Amtsgericht Köln in Germany (Nelson and Others v Lufthansa) and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (TUI Travel, various airlines and the International Air Transport Association v Civil Aviation Authority). The several questions for decision all centred on the validity and interpretation of articles 5 and 7 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. Those articles fell to be interpreted in light of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air 1999 (the Montreal Convention). The claims raised the question whether Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH; Bock v Air France SA Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 522; [2009] ECR I-10923 had been correctly decided in light of the Montreal Convention – it was contended that the court in that case had exceeded its competence.

The court ruled as follows.
(1) Articles 5 to 7 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 passengers whose flights are delayed are entitled to compensation under that regulation where they suffer, on account of such flights, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours; that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.
(2) Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of articles 5 to 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.

Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 15 May 2012

The first issue arising was whether air passengers suffering a delay of more than three hours after the originally scheduled arrival time could be treated as passengers whose flights are cancelled and whether they may rely on the right of compensation laid down in article 7 of the Regulation (this was a question on whether the European Court of Justice would confirm its interpretation given in the case Sturgeon and Others). The second issue was whether the articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Regulation were consistent with the Montreal Convention articles 19 and 29 as these latter provisions exclude non-compensatory damages for loss occasioned by delay in the carriage of air passengers. There was a further question on whether the former articles were compatible with the principle of legal certainty as the preamble of the Regulation and some judgments of the Court raised doubts regarding liability of air carriers in cases of delay. In addition, compatibility of the articles with the principle of proportionality was also raised. The Advocate General gave opinion recommending that the Court of Justice of the European Union should rule as follows with respect to the interpretation of articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Regulation.
(1) Passengers may rely on the right of compensation laid down in Article 7 of the Regulation where they suffer a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. This was pronounced in Sturgeon and Others and subsequent judgments are not in contradiction with it.
(2) The articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Regulation are compatible with the Montreal Convention articles 19 and 29. The Convention is designed to govern the conditions for compensation for individual damages which can be granted on an individual basis whereas the Regulation envisaged standardised and immediate compensatory measures for damages that are almost identical for every passenger. The former articles are also compatible with the principle of proportionality and legal certainty.

 

Maria de los Reyes Martinez-Reboredo Varela-Villamor v Iberia, Lineas Aereas de Espana SA

Case C-321/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 4 October 2012

Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation for passengers in the event of denied boarding – Concept of ‘denied boarding’ – Cancellation of a passenger’s boarding card by an air carrier because of the anticipated delay to an earlier flight also operated by it which included check-in for the flight concerned

 

Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy

Case C-22/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 4 October 2012

Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Compensation for passengers in the event of denied boarding – Concept of ‘denied boarding’ – Exclusion from characterisation as ‘denied boarding’ – Cancellation of a flight caused by a strike at the airport of departure – Rescheduling of flights after the cancelled flight – Right to compensation of the passengers on those flights

 

ebookers.com Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbande – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Case C-112/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 19 July 2012

Transport – Air transport – Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union – Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 – Obligation on the person selling air travel to ensure that the customer’s acceptance of optional price supplements is on an opt-in basis – Concept of “optional price supplements” – Price of flight cancellation insurance provided by an independent insurance company and forming part of the overall price

This was a reference for a preliminary ruling under article 267 TFEU from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) in litigation between an online seller of air travel and a federal union of consumer associations and organisations. The litigation concerned the lawfulness of the manner in which air travel was being sold and the possibility for consumers to make a fair comparison of prices. The question referred to the court was as follows: “Does Article 23(1) of [Regulation No 1008/2008], according to which optional price supplements are to be communicated in a clear, transparent and unambiguous way at the start of any booking process and are to be accepted by the customer on an opt-in basis, also apply to costs connected with air travel arising from services provided by third parties (in this case, an insurer offering travel cancellation insurance) and which are charged to the air traveller by the company organising the air travel together with the air fare as part of a total price?”

The court held as follows. The concept of “optional price supplements”, referred to in the last sentence of article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers costs, connected with the air travel, arising from services, such as the flight cancellation insurance at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a party other than the air carrier and charged to the customer by the person selling that travel, together with the air fare, as part of a total price.

[Back to Top]

2011

Air Transport Association of America and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling)

C-366/10, Court of Justice of the European Union, 21 December 2011
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 6 October 2011

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2003/87/EC – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – Directive 2008/101/EC – Inclusion of aviation activities in that scheme – Validity – Chicago Convention – Kyoto Protocol – EU-United States Air Transport Agreement – Principles of customary international law – Legal effects thereof – Whether they may be relied upon – Extraterritoriality of European Union law – Meaning of ‘charges’, ‘fees’ and ‘taxes’

 

Boxus and Roua

Case 128/09, Court of Justice of the European Union, 18 October 2011
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 19 May 2011.

Environmental impact assessment – Concept of ‘specific national legislative act’ – Access to justice in environmental matters – Extent of right to judicial remedy

 

Waypoint Aviation SA v Belgian State

C-9/11, Court of Justice of the European Union, 13 October 2011

Freedom to provide services – Tax legislation – Tax credit on income from loans granted for the acquisition of assets used on national territory – Exclusion of assets for which the right to use is transferred to a third party established in another Member State

 

Sousa Rodríguez and Others

C-83/10, Court of Justice of the European Union, 13 October 2011
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 28 June 2011

Carriage by air (passengers) – Assistance, care and compensation for passengers – Meaning of “cancellation” and “further compensation” – 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

This was a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Pontevedra (Spain) wherein that court sought an interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 on compensation and assistance to passengers. The Advocate General gave opinion recommending that the Court of Justice of the European Union should rule as follows.

(1) The term “cancellation”, as defined in article 2(l) of the Regulation, covers cases in which a flight departs but then returns to the airport of departure and proceeds no further.
(2) The term “further compensation” in article 12(1) of the Regulation includes compensation awarded, in accordance with national legislation and case law, for damage (including non-material damage) in respect of a cancellation arising as a result of a breach of a contract of carriage by air.
(3) Where an air carrier has failed to fulfil obligations imposed on it by articles 8 and 9 of the Regulation, the passengers affected may claim reimbursement of any expenditure incurred by them as a result of that failure, irrespective of whether they requested fulfilment of the obligations at the relevant time. Compensation granted under Article 7 of the same Regulation may not be deducted from such reimbursement.

 

Williams and Others v British Airways Plc

C-155/10, Court of Justice of the European Union, 15 September 2011
Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak, 16 June 2011

Working conditions – Organisation of working time – Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC – Right to paid annual leave – Extent of the obligations provided for by that directive in respect of the nature and level of paid annual leave – Discretion available to the Member States in laying down precise rules governing paid annual leave – Directive 2000/79/EC – Paid annual leave due to pilots employed by airlines

 

Prigge and Others

Case C-447/09, Court of Justice of the European Union, 13 September 2011
Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalòn, 19 May 2011 (French text)

Directive 2000/78/EC – Articles 2(5), 4(1) and 6(1) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Airline pilots – Collective agreement – Clause automatically terminating employment contracts at age 60

 

European Air Transport SA v Collège d’Environment de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Case C-120/10, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 8 September 2011
Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón, 17 February 2011

Air transport – Directive 2002/30/EC – Definition of ‘operating restrictions’ – Noise limits at source which must be observed when over flying built-up areas near an airport – Possibility of adopting national rules based on noise levels measured on the ground – Relationship with Directive 2002/49/EC – Convention on International Civil Aviation – Fundamental rights – Articles 7, 37 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Case law of the European Court of Human Rights and of the Member States concerning protection from noise pollution

 

Atlas Transport v OHMI – Atlas Air (ATLAS)

Case T-145/08, Court of Justice of the European Union, 19 May 2011 (French Text)

Marque communautaire – Procédure de nullité – Marque communautaire verbale ATLAS – Marque Benelux figurative antérieure atlasair – Exigences de forme – Dépôt d’un mémoire exposant les motifs du recours – Suspension de la procédure administrative – Article 59 du règlement (CE) n° 40/94 [devenu article 60 du règlement (CE) n° 207/2009] – Règle 20, paragraphe 7, du règlement (CE) n° 2868/95

EU case on intellectual property rights to an aviation-related trade mark.

 

Ryanair v Commission

Case T-423/07, Court of Justice of the European Union, 19 May 2011

State aid – Competition – Abuse of a dominant position – Aviation sector – Exclusive use of Terminal 2 at Munich Airport – Action for failure to act – Adoption of a position by the Commission – No need to adjudicate – Obligation to act – None

 

Eglitis and Ratnieks

C-294/10, Court of Justice of the European Union, 12 May 2011

Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 5(3) – Compensation of passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight – Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation in the event of extraordinary circumstances – Implementation, by the air carrier, of all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances – Organisation of resources in good time to be able to ensure the operation of the flight after such circumstances have ended.

The claimants were passengers on a cancelled flight from Copenhagen to Riga scheduled for 14 July 2006. The claimants sought compensation. The carrier refused to pay. The passengers’ case was that the cancellation in reality was not due to a temporary closure of Swedish air space but to the fact that the crew’s working hours has expired by the time air space reopened. The Latvian Supreme Court referred the following questions to the EU Court. “(1) Is Article 5(3) of [Regulation No 261/2004] to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier is required, in order to be found to have taken all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances, to organise its resources in good time so that it is possible to operate a programmed flight once the unforeseen extraordinary circumstances have ceased to obtain, that is to say, during a certain period following the scheduled departure time? (2) If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, does Article 6(1) of Regulation [No 261/2004] apply for the purpose of determining the minimum “reserve time” which the air carrier, when organising its resources at the appropriate time, must provide for as a possible foreseeable delay in the event that extraordinary circumstances arise? The Court of Justice of the EU ruled as follows. Article 5(3) of must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier, since it is obliged to implement all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances, must reasonably, at the stage of organising the flight, take account of the risk of delay connected to the possible occurrence of such circumstances. It must, consequently, provide for a certain reserve time to allow it, if possible, to operate the flight in its entirety once the extraordinary circumstances have come to an end. However, that provision cannot be interpreted as requiring, as a ‘reasonable measure’, provision to be made, generally and without distinction, for a minimum reserve time applicable in the same way to all air carriers in all situations when extraordinary circumstances arise. The assessment of the ability of the air carrier to operate the programmed flight in its entirety in the new conditions resulting from the occurrence of those circumstances must be carried out in such a way as to ensure that the length of the required reserve time does not result in the air carrier being led to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time. Article 6(1) of that regulation is not applicable in the context of such an assessment.

 

Luxembourg v Parliament and Council

C-176/09, Court of Justice of the European Union, 12 May 2011
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 16 December 2010 (French text)

Action for annulment – Directive 2009/12/EC – Airport charges – Scope – Airports whose annual traffic is over 5 million passenger movements per year and those with the highest passenger movements in each Member State – Validity – Principles of equal treatment, proportionality and subsidiarity.

The purpose of the Directive challenged by Luxembourg before the Court was to establish a common framework regulating the essential features of airport charges and the way they are set, on the basis that in the absence of such a framework basic requirements in the relationship between airport managing bodies and airport users may not be met. The challenge of Luxembourg was founded upon alleged different treatment of comparable situations; treatment of different situations in the same way; breach of the principle of proportionality; and infringement of the principle of subsidiarity. The Court of Justice of the EU dismissed the action.

 

Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest and Others

Case 275/09, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 17 March 2011
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 17 November 2010

Directive 85/337/EEC – Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment – Airports with a runway length of 2 100 metres or more – Concept of ‘construction’ – Renewal of operating consent.

 

Neukirchinger v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen

Case C-382/08, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 25 January 2011
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 7 September 2010

Air transport – Licence for the organisation of commercial balloon flights – Article 12 EC – Condition of residence or company seat – Administrative sanctions

[Back to Top]

 

2010

Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission

C-459/10, Court of Justice of the European Union, 21 July 2010 (French text)

Pourvoi – Aides d’État – Aide en faveur d’un projet de formation concernant certains emplois sur le nouveau centre de DHL à l’aéroport de Leipzig/Halle – Recours en annulation contre la décision déclarant une partie de l’aide incompatible avec le marché commun – Examen de la nécessité de l’aide – Absence de prise en compte des effets incitatifs de l’aide et de ses externalités positives sur le choix du site

 

Walz v Clickair SA

Case C-63/09, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 6 May 2010
Opinion of Advocate General Mazák, 26 January 2010

Carriage of passengers (Air) – Liability of carriers in respect of checked baggage – Limits of liability in case of destruction, loss, damage or delay of baggage – Concept of ‘damage’ – Material and non-material damage – Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999 – Montreal Convention, 1999, Article 22(2)

[Back to Top]

 

2009

Sturgeon & Ors (Transport)

Joined cases of Christopher Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA

Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-423/07, Court of Justice of the European Union, 19 November 2009
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 2 July 2009

Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article 2(l) and Articles 5, 6 and 7 – Concept of flight ‘delay’ and ‘cancellation’ – Right to compensation in the event of delay – Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’

 

Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v Regione Sardegna

Case C-169/08, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 17 November 2009
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 2 July 2009

Freedom to provide services – Article 49 EC – State aid – Article 87 EC – Regional legislation establishing a tax on stopovers for tourist purposes by aircraft used for the private transport of persons, or by recreational craft, to be imposed only on operators whose tax domicile is outside the territory of that region.

 

Bogiatzi v Deutscher Luftpool et al

Case C-301/08, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 22 October 2009
Opinion of Advocate General Mazák, 25 June 2009

Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 – Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention – Liability of a Community air carrier for damage sustained by a passenger in the event of an accident – Time-limits for bringing an action for damages – International agreement concluded by the Member States – Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 234 EC to interpret Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention – Effect of a Community regulation on an international agreement – Article 307 EC

 

Gottfried Heinrich

Case C-345/06, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 10 March 2009
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 10 April 2008

Article 254(2) EC – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Article 2(3) – Regulation (EC) No 622/2003 – Aviation security – Annex – List of articles prohibited on board aircraft – Not published – Binding force

[Back to Top]

 

2008

Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA

Case C-549/07, European Court of Justice, 22 December 2008

Carriage by air Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 Article 5 Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of flights Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation Cancellation due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken

 

Commission v Spain

Case C-136/07, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 16 October 2008

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC – Recognition of diplomas and professional education and training – Profession of air traffic controller

 

Abraham & Othrs

Case C-2/07, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 28 February 2008
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 29 November 2007

Directive 85/337/EEC – Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment – Airport with a runway more than 2 100 metres in length

[Back to Top]

 

2007

United Kingdom v Council

Case C-137/05, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 18 December 2007
Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak, 10 July 2007

Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 – Passports and travel documents issued by the Member States – Standards for security features and biometrics − Validity

 

Kramme v SAS Scandinavian Airlines Danmark A/S

Case C-396/06, Court of Justice of the European Communities
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 27 September 2007

Air transport – Cancellation of flight – Compensation for passengers – Extraordinary circumstances – Technical problems – Reasonable measures – Causation – Evidence

This case was removed from the register by order of the President of the Fourth Chamber on 11 April 2008

 

Deutsche Lufthansa AG v ANA – Aeroportos de Portugal SA

Case C-181/06, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5 July 2007
Opinion of Advocate General Mazák, 19 April 2007

Air transport – Airports – Ground-handling – Levying of a fee for ground administration and supervision

 

Commission v Belgium

Case C-422/05, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 14 June 2007
Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, 25 January 2007

Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations – Directive 2002/30/EC – Air transport – Noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports – Adoption by a Member State of a measure liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive during the transposition period

 

Commission v Netherlands

Case C-523/04, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 24 April 2007
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 16 November 2006

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America – Admissibility – Reasonable period – Secondary law governing the internal air transport market – Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89 and 2409/92 – External competence of the Community – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC)

[Back to Top]

 

2006

European Parliament v Council of the European Union; European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities

Case C-317/04 & Case C-318/04, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 30 May 2006
Opinion of Advocate General Léger, 22 November 2005

Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data – Action for annulment – Council Decision 2004/496/EC – Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR (Passenger Name Records) data

 

R (on the application of International Air Transport Association (IATA)) v Department of Transport

Case C-344/04, European Court of Justice, 10 January 2006

Carriage by air – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Articles 5, 6 and 7 -Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Validity – Interpretation of Article 234 EC

[Back to Top]

 

2005

Commission v Germany

Case C-386/03, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 14 July 2005
Opinion of Advocate General Léger, 26 May 2005

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Airports – Ground-handling – Directive 96/67/EC

[Back to Top]

 

2004

Commission v Italy

Case C-460/02, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 9 December 2004
Opinion of Advocate General Léger, 9 September 2004

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/67/EC on access to the ground-handling market at Community airports – Incorrect transposal – Partial withdrawal

[Back to Top]

 

2003

Stylianakis v Dimosio

Case C-92/01, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 6 February 2003
Opinion of Advocate General Alber, 8 October 2002

Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC) – European citizenship – Article 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) – Freedom to provide services – Community air transport – Airport tax – Discrimination – Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

[Back to Top]

 

2002

Commission v Germany

Case C-476/98, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5 November 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, 31 January 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America – Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) – External competence of the Community – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC)

 

Commission v Austria

Case C-475/98, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5 November 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, 31 January 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America – Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) – External competence of the Community – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC)

 

Commission v Luxembourg

Case C-472/98, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5 November 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, 31 January 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America – Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) – External competence of the Community – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC)

 

Commission v Belgium

Case C-471/98, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5 November 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, 31 January 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America – Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) – External competence of the Community – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC)

 

Commission v Finland

Case C-469/98, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5 November 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, 31 January 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America – Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) – External competence of the Community – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC)

 

Commission v Sweden

Case C-468/98, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5 November 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, 31 January 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America – Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) – External competence of the Community – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC))

 

Commission v Denmark

Case C-467/98, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5 November 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, 31 January 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Conclusion and application by a Member State of a bilateral ‘open skies’ agreement with the United States of America – Secondary legislation governing the internal air transport market (Regulations (EEC) Nos 2299/89, 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 and 95/93) – External competence of the Community – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) – Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC)

 

Commission v United Kingdom

Case C-466/98, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5 November 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, 31 January 2002

International air transport agreements – Competence – Right of establishment – Agreements predating the EC Treaty

 

Commission v Ireland

Case 328/01, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 15 October 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano, 20 June 2002

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 1999/28/EC – Failure to transpose within the period prescribed

 

Commission v Ireland

Case C-327/01, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 15 October 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Mischo, 20 June 2002

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to implement Directive 98/20/EC

 

Flightline Ltd v Secretário de Estado dos Transportes e Comunicações and TAP – Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, SA

Case C-181/00, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 9 July 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Alber, 27 September 2001

Air transport – Access to intra-Community routes – Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 – Articles 3(2) and 4(1) – Imposition of public service obligations – Lawfulness of restriction on cabotage

 

The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p. Omega Air Ltd; Omega Air Ltd et al v Irish Aviation Authority

Cases C-122/00 and C-27/00, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 12 March 2002
Opinion of Advocate General Alber, 20 September 2001

Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 – Noise emissions of aeroplanes – Prohibition of re-engined aeroplanes with engines with a by-pass ratio of less than 3 – Validity

[Back to Top]

 

2001

Commission v Greece

Case C-494/99, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 5 April 2001
Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, 22 February 2001

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Failure to transpose Directive 94/56/EC

 

Italy v Commission

Case C-361/98, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 18 January 2001
Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas, 16 May 2000

Commission Decision 98/710/EC of 16 September 1998 on a procedure relating to the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 on access forCommunity air carriers to intra-Community air routes – Distribution of air traffic between the airports of Milan – Malpensa 2000

[Back to Top]

 

2000

[Back to Top]

 

1999

Commission v Luxembourg

Case C-138/99, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 16 December 1999
Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, 14 October 1999

Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 94/56/EC – Air transport – Civil aviation – Investigation of accidents and incidents – Transposition

[Back to Top]

 

1997

Air Inter SA v Commission of the European Communities

Case T-260/94, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 19 June 1997

Air transport – Continuation of an exclusive concession on domestic routes – Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 – Articles 5 and 8 – Rights of the defence – Audi alteram partem – Principle of good faith – Principle of proportionality – Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty

[Back to Top]
Image: Tim Beach / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Be Sociable, Share!