1 / 5

THE EXCLUSIVITY OF WC29/MC99 WITH REFERENCE TO PASSENGER PROTECTION REGULATIONS AND JURISPRUDENCE

THE EXCLUSIVITY OF WC29/MC99 WITH REFERENCE TO PASSENGER PROTECTION REGULATIONS AND JURISPRUDENCE. Sonja Radošević LL.M. (Adv.) Air and Space law Leiden. EXCLUSIVITY – MEANING, PURPOSE, INTENT. WC29: Article 24

elizabethallison
Télécharger la présentation

THE EXCLUSIVITY OF WC29/MC99 WITH REFERENCE TO PASSENGER PROTECTION REGULATIONS AND JURISPRUDENCE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE EXCLUSIVITY OF WC29/MC99 WITH REFERENCE TO PASSENGER PROTECTION REGULATIONS AND JURISPRUDENCE Sonja Radošević LL.M. (Adv.) Air and Space law Leiden

  2. EXCLUSIVITY – MEANING, PURPOSE, INTENT WC29: Article 24 • para. 1: »In the cases covered by Articles 18 and 19 any action for damages, however founded, can only be brought subject to the conditions and limits set out in this Convention.« • para 2: »In the cases covered by Article 17 the provisions of the preceding paragraph also apply [...].« MC99: Article 29 - Basis of claims • »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 [...].«

  3. EXCLUSIVITY – THE CORNERSTONE OF WC29/MC99 UNIFORMITY House of Lords, Sidhu and Others v. British Airways (1996): • »[...] to permit exceptions, whereby a passenger could sue outwith the Convention for losses sustained in the course of international carriage by air, would distort the whole system, even in cases for which the Convention did not create any liability on the part of the carrier.« US Supreme Court, El Al Israel Airlines v. Tseng (1999): • »[...] the Warsaw Convention precludes a passenger from maintaining an action for personal injury damages under local law, when her claim does not satisfy the conditions for liability under the Convention.« Others followed: • i.e. most recent: Hook v. British Airways, (2011); Air Canada v. Thibodeau, (2012); Stott v. Thomas Cook Tour Operators (2014).

  4. PASSENGER PROTECTION REGULATIONS AND JURISPRUDENCE DISREGARDING EXCLUSIVITY Two principal causes of concern: (1.) Proliferation of national passenger rights regulations covering the exact same matter as governed exclusively under the WC29/MC99 (i.e. EU Regulation No. 261/2004 (compensation for delay!) and similar regimes adopted elsewhere, i.e. Israel, USA, Turkey, Canada). (2.) Jurisprudence ignoring exclusivity (i.e. national, regional - CJEU): • IATA and ELFAA v. Department for Transport (2006); • Joined cases of Sturgeon v. Condor and Böck v. Air France (2009); • Joined cases of Nelson and Others v. Lufthansa and TUI Travel and Others v. CAA (2012).

  5. EXCLUSIVITY - CONCLUDING REMARKS • WC29/MC99 creates an exclusive and uniform legal framework for air carrier liability in the international air carriage of passengers and baggage, including damages caused by flight delays. • Latest UK Supreme Court case Stott v. Thomas Cook Tour Operators(2014) confirms strict application of exclusivity. • Co-existence of national passenger rights regulations v. WC29/MC99 (exclusivity) → Unresolved and a threat to uniformity. • Any proposal for new passenger rights regulations or to reform existing ones should ascertain that the boundaries of the WC29/MC99 are respected.

More Related