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
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, interpretation of the law

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/21

2. Is excise duty such as that at issue in these proceedings
pending before the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w
Białymstoku, which is charged on any sale of passenger cars
before their initial registration in national territory, contrary
to Article 90 EC — which prohibits discrimination and the
protectionist application of a domestic tax system in favour
of similar domestic products — where such duty is not
charged on the sale of second hand cars previously registered
in the Republic of Poland?

If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:

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

(1) OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1.

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

Action brought on 19 September 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-432/07)

(2007/C 283/37)

(Case C-438/07)

(2007/C 283/38)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Parpala, M. Patakia and S. Pardo Quintillán)

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

Applicants: Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz

Form of order sought

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
flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC)
long delay of
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 inter-
preted as meaning that instances in which passengers are
transported significantly later (22 hours later) on a flight
operating under a longer
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’?

flight number

(original

— Declare that the defendant has breached Article 5(2), (3) and
(5) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste-water treatment (1), as amended by
Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 (2).
The breach consists in the failure to order, at the latest by
from urban
31 December 1998,
waste-water treatment plants with a population equivalent
of over 10 000 discharging directly into sensitive areas or
their catchment areas fulfil the applicable requirements in
Annex I to Council Directive 91/271/EEC, and

emissions

that

all

— Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1994, Sweden classified all its waters as sensitive areas. In
1998 and 2000, Sweden confirmed that classification for the
Commission of the European Communities (the Commission)
and stated that eutrophication was used as a criterion and that it
is the bodies of water affected which determine the type of
tertiary treatment necessary.