Monday, June 19, 2006

"Transfer of passenger name records (PNR): The Commission adopts two initiatives to comply with the Ruling of the ECJ"

According to the EU Press Room, "The European Commission adopted today two initiatives to put a legally sound framework in place for the transfer of PNR data to the United States. These initiatives are the first European answers to correct the legal basis for the Agreement with the US that was struck down by the European Court of Justice on 30 May 2006. The Court ruled that the Article 95 EC-Treaty was not an appropriate legal basis for the transfer of PNR data which are essentially aiming to ensure public security and activities by public authorities in areas of criminal law.
As the Agreement with the United-States remains in force under international law for a period of 90 days after it is denounced by either Party, the Commission recommends to the Council to terminate the Agreement with the US before the end of this month.
At the same time the Commission asks the Council for an authorisation to open negotiations for an Agreement with the United States of America on the use of PNR data to prevent and combat terrorism and transnational crime, including organised crime."

This Press Release is available in full text.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

"Who Takes the Haircut When a Carrier Fails?"

When Canada 3000 ("C3") failed in late 2001, it owed CDN$34m. to various Canadian Airport Authorities and to NAV Canada ("Authorities"). Its planes were leased from a variety of legal titleholders ("Owners"). The Authorities exercised statutory powers to seize the C3 aircraft on account of the debts. The Owners went to Court to recover "their" planes. The Authorities sued the Owners, contending they were jointly and severally liable with C3 for the debts. The Supreme Court ruled on June 9 that: a) The Owners were not jointly and severally liable for the debts; b) The Authorities' rights take priority and they CAN look to the aircraft (or the security that was posted to allow for their release) to satisfy the debts. The Court found the Owners to be sophisticated business people quite able to assess (and bear) risk. Conversely, the Authorities are obliged by law to provide services to all carriers, regardless of their solvency.

(Originally posted by Doug Crozier)