On 30 April 2020, the Court of Justice held its judgment in Case C‑191/19, OI v. Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA,on the interpretation of Article 4(3), Article 5(1)(c)(iii) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The request has been made in proceedings between OI and Air Nostrum Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA (“Air Nostrum”) concerning a request for compensation made by OI as a result of changes made to her reservation against her will.

OI made a single reservation for connecting flights from Jerez de la Frontera (Spain) to Frankfurt am Main (Germany) via Madrid (Spain). More particularly, the reservation consisted of a first flight from Jerez de la Frontera to Madrid, scheduled to depart on 3 October 2015 at 13.35 and to land at 14.45, and a second flight from Madrid to Frankfurt am Main, scheduled to depart on the same day at 20.00 and to land at 22.40. However, due to a change against her will, OI was given a seat on another flight, which took off from Jerez de la Frontera at approximately 17.55 and landed in Madrid at approximately 19.05.

Despite having arrived in Frankfurt am Main 10 minutes before the scheduled time, OI brought an action before the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Local Court, Frankfurt am Main) seeking compensation from Air Nostrum for the unilateral change to her reservation. Since her action was dismissed, OI appealed to the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main; the “referring court”) which, in light of the need to interpret the relevant European legislation, stayed the proceedings and asked the Court of Justice two preliminary questions.

By its first question, the referring court asked 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. According to the Court, since the applicant, at the end of her journey, arrived at her final destination no later than the time originally scheduled, she cannot benefit from the right to compensation on the basis of Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004, inasmuch as it 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 time.

In light of the answer given to the first question, the Court deemed unnecessary to answer the second one, by which the referring court asked whether Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 applies by analogy in the event of denied boarding within the meaning of Article 4(3) of that regulation.

Marco Stillo