- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-549/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane SpA
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007CN0549
62007CN0549
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
8.3.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 64/18
(Case C-549/07)
(2008/C 64/27)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Friederike Wallentin-Hermann
Defendant: Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane SpA
Questions referred
1.Are there extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of 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 (1), having regard to the 14th recital in the preamble to the regulation, if a technical defect in the aeroplane, in particular damage to the engine, results in the cancellation of the flight, and must the grounds of excuse under Article 5(3) of the regulation be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention?
2.If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are there extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 where air carriers cite technical defects as a reason for flight cancellations with above average frequency, solely on the basis of their frequency?
3.If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, has an air carrier taken all ‘reasonable measures’ in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 if it establishes that the minimum legal requirements with regard to maintenance work on the aeroplane have been met and is that sufficient to relieve the air carrier of the obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 5 in conjunction with Article 7 of the regulation?
4.If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 cases of force majeure or natural disasters, which were not due to a technical defect and are thus unconnected with the air carrier?
(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.