Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62018CN0213

Case C-213/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Adriano Guaitoli and Others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

OJ C 240, 9.7.2018, p. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201806220141970532018/C 240/222132018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180326192022

Case C-213/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Adriano Guaitoli and Others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Top

C2402018EN1920120180326EN0022192202

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 26 March 2018 — Adriano Guaitoli and Others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

(Case C-213/18)

2018/C 240/22Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Adriano Guaitoli, Concepción Casan Rodriguez, Alessandro Celano Tomassoni, Antonia Cirilli, Lucia Cortini, Mario Giuli, Patrizia Padroni

Defendant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

Questions referred

1.

If a party whose flight has been delayed or cancelled jointly requests, not only the standardised and lump-sum compensation provided for by Articles 5, 7 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, ( 1 ) but also the further compensation referred to in Article 12 of the Regulation, must Article 33 of the Montreal Convention apply, or is ‘jurisdiction’ (both international and local) governed by Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001? ( 2 )

2.

In the first hypothesis in question 1, must Article 33 of the Montreal Convention be interpreted to the effect that it governs only the allocation of jurisdiction among the States Parties, or as meaning that it also governs local jurisdiction within the individual State?

3.

In the first hypothesis in question 2, is the application of Article 33 of the Montreal Convention ‘exclusive’, precluding application of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, or may the two provisions be applied jointly, so as to determine directly both the jurisdiction of the State and the local jurisdiction of its courts?

( 1 ) 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 — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

( 2 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

Top