Case C-13/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — In the proceedings brought by Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser (Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Equal treatment — Self-employed frontier workers — Agricultural lease — Agricultural structure)
Date: 2008-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Switzerland, agreement (EU), free movement of workers, frontier worker, interpretation of the law

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/21

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Friederike Wallentin-Hermann

Defendant: Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien —
Interpretation 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 assis-
tance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of
cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation
(EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Concepts of ‘extraor-
dinary circumstances’ and ‘reasonable measures’ — Cancellation
of a flight on account of an engine defect — Substantially
higher rate of cancellations due to technical defects than that of
other airlines

Operative part of the judgment

1. 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, must be
interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft
which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the
concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that
provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their
nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the
activity of
the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual
control. The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for
International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May
the grounds of
is not decisive for the interpretation of
1999,
exemption under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.

2. The frequency of

the technical problems experienced by an air
carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of
‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of
Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded.

3. The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules
on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish
that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the
meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, there-
fore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation
provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof (Germany)) — In the proceedings brought by
Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser

(Case C-13/08) (1)

(Agreement between the European Community and its
Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation,
of the other, on the free movement of persons — Equal treat-
ment — Self-employed frontier workers — Agricultural lease
— Agricultural structure)

(2009/C 44/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser

Interested party: Regierungspräsidium Freiburg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof —
Interpretation of Articles 12(1), 13(1) and 15(1) of Annex I to
the Agreement between the European Community and its
Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of
the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxem-
bourg on 21 June 1999 (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6) — Applicability
of the principle of equal treatment to self-employed frontier
workers — Farmer with Swiss nationality residing in Switzer-
land having entered into a lease agreement for land for agri-
cultural use located in Germany.

Operative part of the judgment

Pursuant to Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the
European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the
Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons,
signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, a contracting party must
accord to the ‘self employed frontier workers’, within the meaning of
Article 13 of that annex, of the other contracting party no less favour-
able treatment as regards access to self-employed activity and the
pursuit thereof in the host State than that which is accorded by that
State to its own nationals.

(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.

(1) OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.