It is apparent from paragraph 23 of the Wallentin judgment that a technical problem can be considered to be covered by ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’ and is therefore an ‘event’ within the meaning of paragraph 22 of the Wallentin judgment; the circumstances surrounding that event may nevertheless be regarded as extraordinary if they relate to an event which is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activities of the air carrier and beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin, as provided in paragraph 23 of the Wallentin judgment; according to paragraph 24 thereof, the resolution of a technical problem which can be traced back to poor maintenance of an aircraft ...[+++] is inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity; therefore, according to paragraph 25 of the Wallentin judgment, such technical problems cannot constitute extraordinary circumstances.

(53) See in this respect the judgment in Commercial Solvents cited in footnote 3, in the judgment in Hoffmann-La Roche, cited in footnote, paragraph 125, and in RTE and ITP cited in footnote, as well as Case 6/72, Continental Can, [1973] ECR 215, paragraph 16, and Case 27/76, United Brands, [1978] ECR 207, paragraphs 197 to 203.

The Regulation intends to reinforce the animal health rules (cleansing and disinfection) applicable to staging points following outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the Community in 2001 linked with the commingling of animals at staging points.

(40) United Brands, op. cit., paragraph 44, Michelin, op. cit., paragraph 26, Case 247/86 Alsatel v Novasam [1988] ECR 5987, paragraph 15; Tiercé Ladbroke v Commission, op. cit., paragraph 102.

6. The condition and state of the animals shall be inspected by a staff member of the staging point on their arrival at the staging point and at least once every 12 hours during their stay at the staging point.

the additional ground for refusal based on fundamental rights - the Council looked at whether an uneven implementation of the Framework Decision on this point could entail a discrimination in respect of the persons arrested on the basis of an European arrest warrant depending on whether or not the judge of the executing state has to review the consistency of the European arrest warrant with fundamental rights, which could run counter to the principle of mutual recognition; the additional ground for refusal based on political reasons ...[+++]- the question examined was whether a ground of non-recognition as regards political reasons for issuing an European arrest warrant would go beyond the Framework Decision; designation of the Ministry of Justice as executing authority - the Council examined whether that designation interfered with the principle on which the European arrest warrant was based since it had been conceived as being entirely judicial, with the guarantees of judicial independence and freedom from political influence that follow; application "ratione temporis" of the Framework Decision - the Council examined how to resolve the fact that the legislation of some Member States was incompatible and that certain European arrest warrants or extradition requests could not be issued or executed.