- German Court challenges EU Regulation on security standards for passports and travel documents;
- UK: airlines to include debit card surcharges in headline prices;
- Canada: Transportation Agency decides in flight cancellation and overbooking cases;
- Germany: lugagge to be carried on a later flight is no legitimate reason to deny boarding;
- Denmark: passengers of a cancelled flight entitled to rerouting at the earliest opportunity;
- New Body Scanners at Scottish Airports;
- Netherlands: new reference for ECJ preliminary ruling regarding air passenger rights;
- German Supreme Court: no compensation for flight cancellation caused by strike;
- EU Economic and Social Committee publishes opinion on passenger rights in all transport modes;
- Egypt: new tourism minister appointed;
- IFTTA Law Review 2-2012 available online;
- USA: DOT fines companies for violating Consumer Protection and Price Advertising Rules;
- UK: Bad Taste Tweets Not Criminal;
- USA: Airlines lose appeal against DOT fare rules;
- EU Commission publishes consumer tips for visitors to the 2012 Olympic Games;
- UK and Unfair Contract Terms Reforms;
- CJEU: inclusion of flight cancellation insurance as a default setting unlawful when selling air tickets over the internet;
- UK: British Airways to check passengers on Google?;
- Austria: regulation on proper rail passenger behaviour;
- USA: new law to require airlines to seat families together?;
- Scottish Jurisdiction over Shetland;
- Austria: Appelate court decides on "fly all or pay up" clauses;
- Spain: Court of Appeal of Barcelona regards Ryanair's boarding pass printing policy lawful;
"Sodalem esse societatis quae dedicetur ad exercitatio legis ut produceat iter peregrationemque"
Showing posts with label Luxembourg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luxembourg. Show all posts
Monday, September 03, 2012
Update on IFTTA News
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to interpret Warsaw Convention
Reference to ECJ was made in the course of proceedings brought by Ms Bogiatzi against Société Luxair, société luxembourgeoise de navigation aérienne SA (‘Luxair’), and Deutscher Luftpool, an association under German law, concerning joint and several liability to compensate her for the injury she suffered as a result of an accident which occurred while boarding a Luxair aeroplaneon 21 Dec. 1998.
On 22 December 2003, Ms Bogiatzi brought proceedings for damages against Deutscher Luftpool – an association of aviation insurers which is governed by German civil law – and Luxair before the tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (District Court, Luxembourg), relying on Regulation No 2027/97 and the Warsaw Convention. Ms Bogiatzi’s claim, brought five years after the events at issue took place, was held inadmissible. The court held that the two-year limitation period provided for in Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention for bringing actions for damages is predetermined and may not be suspended or interrupted. The inadmissibility of the claim was confirmed on appeal. Ms Bogiatzi then appealed on a point of law to the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) which decided to stay proceedings and file a reference for preliminary ruling to the ECJ.
In its judgement of 22 October 2009 ECJ rejected jurisdiction for the following reasons:
Pursuant to Article 234 EC, the Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of the EC Treaty and on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community. 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. However, as the Community is not a contracting party to the Warsaw Convention the Court does not, in principle, have jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of that convention in preliminary ruling proceedings.
Even though the Court has jurisdiction to interpret an international convention which has not been ratified by the Community 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 such convention applies, in absence of a full transfer of the powers previously exercised by the Member States to the Community, the latter cannot, simply because at the material time all those States were parties to the Warsaw Convention, be bound by the rules set out therein, which it has not itself approved.
The Warsaw Convention therefore does not form part of the rules of the Community legal order which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret under Article 234 EC.
Regulation No 2027/97 must be interpreted as not precluding the application of Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention to a situation in which a passenger seeks to establish the liability of the air carrier on account of harm suffered by him when flying between Member States of the Community.
Full text of judgement C‑301/08 of Oct. 22, 2009 available here>>.
On 22 December 2003, Ms Bogiatzi brought proceedings for damages against Deutscher Luftpool – an association of aviation insurers which is governed by German civil law – and Luxair before the tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (District Court, Luxembourg), relying on Regulation No 2027/97 and the Warsaw Convention. Ms Bogiatzi’s claim, brought five years after the events at issue took place, was held inadmissible. The court held that the two-year limitation period provided for in Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention for bringing actions for damages is predetermined and may not be suspended or interrupted. The inadmissibility of the claim was confirmed on appeal. Ms Bogiatzi then appealed on a point of law to the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) which decided to stay proceedings and file a reference for preliminary ruling to the ECJ.
In its judgement of 22 October 2009 ECJ rejected jurisdiction for the following reasons:
Pursuant to Article 234 EC, the Court has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of the EC Treaty and on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community. 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. However, as the Community is not a contracting party to the Warsaw Convention the Court does not, in principle, have jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of that convention in preliminary ruling proceedings.
Even though the Court has jurisdiction to interpret an international convention which has not been ratified by the Community 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 such convention applies, in absence of a full transfer of the powers previously exercised by the Member States to the Community, the latter cannot, simply because at the material time all those States were parties to the Warsaw Convention, be bound by the rules set out therein, which it has not itself approved.
The Warsaw Convention therefore does not form part of the rules of the Community legal order which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret under Article 234 EC.
Regulation No 2027/97 must be interpreted as not precluding the application of Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention to a situation in which a passenger seeks to establish the liability of the air carrier on account of harm suffered by him when flying between Member States of the Community.
Full text of judgement C‑301/08 of Oct. 22, 2009 available here>>.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
European Court of Justice: Preliminary Ruling instituted on Warsaw Convention
In a case of a plaintiff claiming damages for being injured when falling on the runway at Luxembourg Airport as she was about to enter the aircraft, on Sep. 1, 2008, a Luxembourg court has referred the following questions to the European Court of Justice:
1. Does the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, as amended at The Hague on 28 September 1955, to which Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 refers, form part of the rules of the Community legal order which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret under Article 234 EC?
2. Must Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, in the version applicable at the time of the accident, namely 21 December 1998, be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to issues for which no express provision is made, the provisions of the Warsaw Convention, in this case Article 29, continue to apply to a flight between Member States of the Community?
3. If the answer to the first and second questions is in the affirmative, is Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention, in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 2027/97, to be interpreted as meaning that the period of two years laid down in that article can be suspended or interrupted or that the carrier or its insurer can waive that time-limit, by an act deemed by the national court to constitute recognition of liability?
Case C301/08 - Irene Bogiatzi v Deutscher Luftpool
1. Does the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, as amended at The Hague on 28 September 1955, to which Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 refers, form part of the rules of the Community legal order which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret under Article 234 EC?
2. Must Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents, in the version applicable at the time of the accident, namely 21 December 1998, be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to issues for which no express provision is made, the provisions of the Warsaw Convention, in this case Article 29, continue to apply to a flight between Member States of the Community?
3. If the answer to the first and second questions is in the affirmative, is Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention, in conjunction with Regulation (EC) No 2027/97, to be interpreted as meaning that the period of two years laid down in that article can be suspended or interrupted or that the carrier or its insurer can waive that time-limit, by an act deemed by the national court to constitute recognition of liability?
Case C301/08 - Irene Bogiatzi v Deutscher Luftpool
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)