12. Hearing an action for annulment of that decision, the referring court has doubts as to the scope of the powers held by the Consumer Protection Inspectorate. In those circumstances, it decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Must Article 16(1) and (2) of Regulation [No 261/2004] be interpreted as meaning that where an individual complaint has been made by a passenger to the national body responsible for the enforcement of that regulation, that body cannot compel the airline in question to pay the compensation due to the passenger under [that] regulation?’
13. LOT, the Consumer Protection Inspectorate, the Hungarian, Netherlands and Polish Governments and the Commission submitted written observations. Those parties also presented oral argument at the hearing held on 2 February 2022.
IV. . Analysis
A. Initial remark
14. In order to examine the reference for a preliminary ruling, one initial remark should be made concerning the need to take account of rules of law other than those expressly cited by the referring court.
15. The question arises against the backdrop of the provisions of Regulation 2017/2394 and, in particular, Article 9(4)(f) thereof.
16. Article 1 of that regulation states that the regulation ‘lays down the conditions under which competent authorities, having been designated by their Member States as responsible for the enforcement of Union laws that protect consumers’ interests, cooperate and coordinate actions with each other and with the Commission, in order to enforce compliance with those laws and to ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market, and in order to enhance the protection of consumers’ economic interests’.
17. Pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation 2017/2394 and the annex thereto, ‘Union laws that protect consumers’ interests’ include those set out in Regulation No 261/2004.
18. In Article 9(4)(f) of Regulation 2017/2349, the EU legislature made the following provision: