Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62007CN0549

    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

    OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 18–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    8.3.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 64/18

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane SpA

    (Case C-549/07)

    (2008/C 64/27)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Handelsgericht Wien

    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.

    Top