CELEX: C2007/283/37
Language: en
Date: 2007-11-24 00:00:00
Title: 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

24.11.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 283/21
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 18 September 2007 — Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA
   (Case C-432/07)
   (2007/C 283/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Handelsgericht Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicants: Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz
   
      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 long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) 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 interpreted as meaning that instances in which passengers are transported significantly later (22 hours later) on a flight operating under a longer flight number (original 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’?
               If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that technical problems with a plane and the resulting changes to the flight schedule represent extraordinary circumstances (which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken)?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1.