Irène Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras v Deutscher Luftpool and Others.
Date: 2009-10-22
18. In that connection, it must be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, the purpose of the first paragraph of Article 307 EC is to make it clear, in accordance with the principles of international law, that application of the Treaty is not to affect the duty of the Member State concerned to respect the rights of third countries under a prior agreement and to perform its obligations (see Case 812/79 Burgoa [1980] ECR 2787, paragraph 8; Case C-216/01 Budĕjovický Budvar  [2003] ECR I‑13617, paragraphs 144 and 145; Case C-205/06 Commission v Austria  [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 33; and Case C‑249/06 Commission  v Sweden  [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 34).
19. However, it is equally settled case-law that the provisions of an agreement concluded prior to the entry into force of the Treaty cannot be relied on in intra-Community relations (see, in particular, Case 286/86 Deserbais  [1988] ECR 4907, paragraph 18; Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P RTE and ITP  v Commission  [1995] ECR I-743, paragraph 84; and Case C-473/93 Commission  v Luxembourg  [1996] ECR I-3207, paragraph 40).
23. According to settled case-law, an agreement concluded by the Council, in accordance with Articles 300 EC and 310 EC, is, as far as the Community is concerned, an act of one of the institutions of the Community, within the meaning of subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article 234 EC. The provisions of such an agreement form an integral part of the Community legal order as from its entry into force and, within the framework of that order, the Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of such an agreement (Case 181/73 Haegeman  [1974] ECR 449, paragraphs 4 to 6; Case 12/86 Demirel [1987] ECR 3719, paragraph 7; Case C-321/97 Andersson and Wåkerås-Andersson  [1999] ECR I-3551, paragraph 26; and Case C-431/05 Merck Genéricos – Produtos Farmacêuticos  [2007] ECR I-7001, paragraph 31).
24. In the main proceedings, it is common ground that the Community is not a contracting party to the Warsaw Convention. Accordingly, the Court does not, in principle, have jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of that convention in preliminary ruling proceedings (see Case 130/73 Vandeweghe and Others  [1973] ECR 1329, paragraph 2, and the order in Case C-162/98 Hartmann  [1998] ECR I‑7083, paragraph 9).
25. However, the Court has also held that, where and in so far as, pursuant to the Treaty, the Community has assumed the powers previously exercised by the Member States in the field to which an international convention applies and, therefore, its provisions have the effect of binding the Community, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret such a convention, even though it has not been ratified by the Community (see, to that effect, Joined Ca ses 21/72 to 24/72 International Fruit Company and Others  [1972] ECR 1219, paragraph 18; Case C-379/92 Peralta  [1994] ECR I-3453, paragraph 16; and Case C-308/06 Intertanko and Others  [2008] ECR I-4057, paragraph 48).
39. In those circumstances, it is to be recalled that, according to settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of Community law it is necessary to consider not only its wording and the context in which it occurs, but also the objective pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑301/98 KVS International  [2000] ECR I-3583, paragraph 21; Case C-300/05 ZVK  [2006] ECR I-11169, paragraph 15; and Case C-466/07 Klarenberg  [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 37).