I note that, although the applicant in the main proceedings stated at the hearing that the application of Austrian law under Article 4(2) of the Rome II Regulation could not, at that stage, be ruled out, the fact remains that it is for the referring court alone to rule on this point. I am therefore of the opinion that, should the Court consider that the Montreal Convention and Regulation No 2027/97 apply in the main proceedings, the court with jurisdiction to entertain the main action should be determined pursuant to Article 33 of that convention.

Multiply the divisor by the result in the previous step (14 x 7 = 98) and write the answer at the bottom: Council Regulation of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) (‘Brussels I Regulation’). This regulation was replaced as from 10 January 2015 by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1) which does not, however, apply to the dispute in the main proceedings under the transitional provisions set out in Article 66 thereof.Articles 1 and 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of the Council of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999 and approved on behalf of the European Union by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, do not apply to a national flight that is not operated by an air carrier holding an operating licence within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community. Note that you may use our state-of-the-art calculator above to obtain the quotient of any two integers or whole numbers, including 240 and 14, of course. local flight” means a flight not involving carriage of passengers, mail and/or cargo between different airports or other authorised landing points.’

Under Article 18, the right to bring a direct action exists when the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation or the law applicable to the insurance contract so provides. a) air services performed by non-power-driven aircraft and/or ultralight power-driven aircraft; andEstimated delivery times are provided to us by the respective delivery companies. We pass this information onto you, the customer. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6). If you live in an older home, it’s possible that your electrical system isn’t up to code or doesn’t have the capacity to support modern appliances, like a dryer, that require more power. In this case, you might need to have a NEMA 14-50 outlet installed so that you can use these appliances without overloading your electrical system.

By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 29 of the Montreal Convention precludes a national provision that provides for a direct action by the injured party against the insurer of the air carrier. Furthermore, Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation No 2027/97 defines ‘[European Union] air carrier’ as a person with a valid operating licence granted by a Member State in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 1008/2008. ( 12)

Kingston high quality HP 240 14 inch G9 (Pentium/Celeron) Laptop upgrades.

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).

This Regulation implements the relevant provisions of the Montreal Convention in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air and lays down certain supplementary provisions. It also extends the application of these provisions to carriage by air within a single Member State.’ This request is interesting for two reasons from the standpoint of EU law. First, it affords the Court the opportunity to define the boundaries of the scope of both the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ( 2) and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 ( 3) which implements that convention. Second, it allows the Court to determine the scope of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, ( 4) which concerns direct action against the insurer of the liable party.Therefore, an injured party may bring a direct action against the insurer when this possibility arises either under the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation or under the law applicable to the insurance contract, whether this law was chosen by the parties to the insurance contract or determined under the conflict rules of the Rome I Regulation. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3). This regulation repealed Regulation No 2407/92 with effect from 1 November 2008. In the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo, any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convention without prejudice to the question as to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit and what are their respective rights. In any such action, punitive, exemplary or any other non-compensatory damages shall not be recoverable.’ In those circumstances, the Landesgericht Korneuburg decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: