C2007/283/37


Title and reference

Case C-432/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 18 September 2007 — Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA

 OJ C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 21–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

 BG  CS  DA  DE  EL  EN  ES  ET  FI  FR  HU  IT  LT  LV  MT  NL  PL  PT  RO  SK  SL  SV

Text

BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN FR GA IT LV LT HU MT NL PL PT RO SK SL FI SV
html html html html html html html html html   html html html html html html html html html html html html html
pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf   pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf pdf
tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff tiff

Dates

Classifications

Miscellaneous information

Relationship between documents

Text

Bilingual display: BG CS DA DE EL EN ES ET FI FR HU IT LT LV MT NL PL PT RO SK SL SV

20070918

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 18 September 2007 — Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz

Defendant: Air France SA

Questions referred

1. Must Article 5, read in conjunction with Articles 2(l) and 6, 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], be interpreted as meaning that a 22-hour delay in the time of departure constitutes a "delay" within the meaning of Article 6?

2. Must Article 2(l) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that instances in which passengers are transported significantly later (22 hours later) on a flight operating under a longer flight number (original flight number supplemented by an "A") and carrying only an — albeit large — proportion of the passengers booked on the initial flight, but also additional passengers not booked on the initial flight, constitute "cancellations" rather than "delays"?

If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:

3. Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that technical problems with a plane and the resulting changes to the flight schedule represent extraordinary circumstances (which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken)?

[1] OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1.

--------------------------------------------------

Top

Managed by the Publications Office