CELEX: 62007CN0549
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-549/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane SpA

8.3.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 64/18
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane SpA
   (Case C-549/07)
   (2008/C 64/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Handelsgericht Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Friederike Wallentin-Hermann
   
      Defendant: Alitalia — Linee Aeree Italiane SpA
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Are there extraordinary circumstances within the meaning 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 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), having regard to the 14th recital in the preamble to the regulation, if a technical defect in the aeroplane, in particular damage to the engine, results in the cancellation of the flight, and must the grounds of excuse under Article 5(3) of the regulation be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are there extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 where air carriers cite technical defects as a reason for flight cancellations with above average frequency, solely on the basis of their frequency?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, has an air carrier taken all ‘reasonable measures’ in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 if it establishes that the minimum legal requirements with regard to maintenance work on the aeroplane have been met and is that sufficient to relieve the air carrier of the obligation to pay compensation in accordance with Article 5 in conjunction with Article 7 of the regulation?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 cases of force majeure or natural disasters, which were not due to a technical defect and are thus unconnected with the air carrier?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.