Case C-173/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 2 April 2007 — Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland v Diether Schenkel
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, indemnification, interpretation of the law, transport regulations

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/9

Questions referred

1. Does Article 43 EC (in conjunction with Article 48 EC)
preclude the application of national legislation under which
authorisation is required to set up a private hospital in the
form of an independent outpatient clinic for dental medicine
(dental clinic) and that authorisation is to be refused if,
according to the stated purpose of the institution and the
range of services envisaged, there is no need for the planned
outpatient dental clinic having regard to the existing provi-
sion of care by established doctors working on a contractual
basis with sickness funds,
institutions owned by sickness
funds and institutions contracted to sickness funds and by
established dentists working on a contractual basis with sick-
ness funds?

2. Is the answer to Question 1 any different if the existing
provision of care by outpatient clinics of public, private non-
profit making and other hospitals working on a contractual
basis with sickness funds is also to be included in the exami-
nation as to need?

a

for

from the
preliminary
Reference
Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged
on 2 April 2007 — Emirates Airlines Direktion für
Deutschland v Diether Schenkel

ruling

lishing 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), to be interpreted as meaning that ‘a flight’ includes in
any event the flight from the point of departure to the destina-
tion and back in the case where the outward and return flights
are booked at the same time?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords
(United Kingdom) made on 2 April 2007 — Riunione
Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA (RAS) v West Tankers Inc.

(Case C-185/07)

(2007/C 155/17)

Language of the case: English

(Case C-173/07)

(2007/C 155/16)

Referring court

House of Lords

Language of the case: German

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland

Defendant: Diether Schenkel

Question referred

Is Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 estab-

Applicant: Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA (RAS)

Defendant: West Tankers Inc.

Question referred

Is it consistent with EC Regulation 44/2001 (1) for a court of a
Member State to make an order to restrain a person from
commencing or continuing proceedings in another Member
State on the ground that such proceedings are in breach of an
arbitration agreement?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and
the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commer-
cial matters (OJ L 12, p. 1).