# C_2014261EN.01001401.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 12 May 2014 — Eleonore Prüller-Frey v Norbert Brodnig, Axa Versicherung AG

(Case C-240/14)

2014/C 261/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eleonore Prüller-Frey

Applicant:

Defendants: Norbert Brodnig, Axa Versicherung AG

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 2(1)(a) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents (1), Article 3(c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators (2), and Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (3), signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999, to be interpreted as meaning that claims for damages by an injured party:






  — | who was a passenger in an aircraft which had the same take-off and landing place in a Member State, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 2(1)(a) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents (1), Article 3(c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators (2), and Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (3), signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999, to be interpreted as meaning that claims for damages by an injured party:

1

2

3

—

who was a passenger in an aircraft which had the same take-off and landing place in a Member State,

| — | who was carried by the pilot free of charge, |
| --- | --- |

—

who was carried by the pilot free of charge,

| — | the purpose of the flight being, in connection with a real-property transaction planned with the pilot, to view the property from the air, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the purpose of the flight being, in connection with a real-property transaction planned with the pilot, to view the property from the air, and

| — | who was physically injured when the aircraft crashed, |
| --- | --- |

—

who was physically injured when the aircraft crashed,

must be adjudged exclusively in accordance with Article 17 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999, and that national law is not applicable?

If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

| 2. | Are Article 33 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999, and Article 67 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (4) to be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction to hear and rule on the claims for damages referred to in Question 1 must be determined exclusively in accordance with Article 33 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999?
  If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Article 33 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999, and Article 67 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (4) to be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction to hear and rule on the claims for damages referred to in Question 1 must be determined exclusively in accordance with Article 33 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999?

4

If the reply to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

| 3. | Are Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999, and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (5) to be interpreted as precluding national provisions which provide for a direct action by the injured party referred to in Question 1 against the civil-liability insurer of the person responsible for the injury?
  If the reply to Question 1 is in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

3.

Are Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999, and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (5) to be interpreted as precluding national provisions which provide for a direct action by the injured party referred to in Question 1 against the civil-liability insurer of the person responsible for the injury?

5

If the reply to Question 1 is in the negative:

| 4. | Are Article 7(1)(f) of Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC (6), and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions governing the direct action brought by the injured party referred to in Question 1 against the civil-liability insurer of the person responsible for the injury are to be adjudged in accordance with the law of a third State if:






  — | the lex loci delicti provides for a direct action in its legislation on insurance contracts, |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Are Article 7(1)(f) of Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC (6), and Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions governing the direct action brought by the injured party referred to in Question 1 against the civil-liability insurer of the person responsible for the injury are to be adjudged in accordance with the law of a third State if:

6

—

the lex loci delicti provides for a direct action in its legislation on insurance contracts,

lex loci delicti

| — | the parties to the insurance contract make a choice of law in favour of the legal system of a third State, |
| --- | --- |

—

the parties to the insurance contract make a choice of law in favour of the legal system of a third State,

| — | according to which the law of the State in which the insurer has its seat is to be applied, and |
| --- | --- |

—

according to which the law of the State in which the insurer has its seat is to be applied, and

| — | the legal system of that State also provides for a direct action in its legislation on insurance contracts? |
| --- | --- |

—

the legal system of that State also provides for a direct action in its legislation on insurance contracts?

---

(1)  OJ L 285, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 138, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ 2001 L 194, p. 39.

3

(4)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

4

(5)  OJ L 199, p. 40.

5

(6)  OJ L 172, p. 1.

6

---