Reference for a preliminary ruling before the ECJ (Case C-83/10 Rodríguez ea/Air France) from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Pontevedra (Spain) regarding the questions,whether the term ‘cancellation’, defined in Art 2 lit l of Regulation 261/2004/EC has to be interpreted as meaning only the failure of the flight to depart as planned or is it also to be interpreted as meaning any circumstance as a result of which the flight on which places are reserved takes off but fails to reach its destination, including the case in which the flight is forced to return to the airport of departure for technical reasons?whether the term ‘further compensation’ used in Art 12 has to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a cancellation, the national court may award compensation for damage, including non-material damage, for breach of a contract of carriage by air in accordance with rules established in national legislation and case-law on breach of contact or, on the contrary, must such compensation relate solely to appropriately substantiated expenses incurred by passengers and not adequately indemnified by the carrier in accordance with the requirements of Art 8 et seq even if such provisions have not been expressly relied upon or, lastly, are the two aforementioned definitions of the term further compensation compatible one with another?
