In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg as follows:

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) Therefore, the question of the application of the Montreal Convention must be examined before the other questions submitted by the referring court. This consideration applies regardless of whether the law applicable to the insurance contract is the result of (i) the choice of the parties to the contract or (ii) the application of the conflict rules set out in Regulation (EC) No 593/2008. ( 20) The aim of Regulation No 2027/97 is to make the liability of air carriers subject to a single set of rules, both for international and national carriage within the European Union. This objective militates in favour of a broad interpretation of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2027/97.As appears from the documents before the Court, the applicant submits in the application in the main proceedings that the Austrian courts have jurisdiction under Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 ( 7) and that Austrian law applies in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Rome II Regulation. She also maintains that she is entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer under Austrian law.

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. Also, it looks like we have some content that is in kmod-redhat-oracleasm-2.0.8-1.3.el8_3.x86_64.rpm that isn't in the one that embeds the kernel version in the name for the 8.3.0.z build: Ms Prüller-Frey is habitually resident in Austria. At the relevant time, Mr Brodnig had stated that he resided in both Austria and Spain. Nevertheless, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that the referring court considers, with regard to the possible application of Article 4(2) of the Rome II Regulation, that the parties to the main proceedings did not have their habitual residence in the same country at the time of the accident. Under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2027/97, the liability of an air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage is governed by ‘all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability’.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. Article 18 of the Rome II Regulation does not constitute a conflict-of-laws rule with respect to the substantive law applicable to the determination of the liability of the insurer or the liable party. The sole aim of this article is to determine which law applies to the question as to whether the victim can bring a claim directly against the insurer, and does not concern the extent of the insurer or the liable party’s obligations. 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. Are Article 33 of the [Montreal] Convention …and Article 67 of … Regulation … No 44/2001 … to be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction to hear and rule on the claims for damages referred to in Question 1 must be determined exclusively on the basis of Article 33 of the [Montreal] Convention …?

Are Article 29 of the [Montreal] Convention … and Article 18 of [the Rome II] Regulation … to be interpreted as precluding national provisions which provide for a direct action by the injured party referred to in Question 1 against the civil-liability insurer of the person responsible for the injury?Nevertheless, it is still appropriate to consider whether Article 33 applies in the case of a flight made within a single Member State.