This article addresses Regulation EC No 261/2004 in so far as it deals with delay in the carriage of passengers by air, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the joined cases Nelson and TUI Travel. It considers whether this recent judgment is consistent with the Montreal Convention of 1999 reaching the overall conclusion that it is not. This unsatisfactory result is due to purpose of ensuring a level of protection for passenger higher than that provided by the international uniform rules. This aim has been achieved affirming the interpretation of the Regulation provided in the Sturgeon case, in which the Court went far beyond the wording of the Regulation, and in the IATA case, in which the Court advanced an untenable and ambiguous construction of the relationship between the Montreal Convention and Regulation No 261/2004. Conversely, in deciding the joined cases, the Court neglected its duty to interpret according to the proper criteria provided by international law the treaties ratified by the EU, and failed to ensure that the EU respect its duty as contracting party.
La compatibilità del regolamento (CE) n. 261/2004 con la convenzione di Montreal del 1999 in una recente pronuncia della Corte di giustizia / L. Sandrini. - In: RIVISTA DI DIRITTO INTERNAZIONALE PRIVATO E PROCESSUALE. - ISSN 0035-6174. - 49:1(2013), pp. 93-120.
La compatibilità del regolamento (CE) n. 261/2004 con la convenzione di Montreal del 1999 in una recente pronuncia della Corte di giustizia
L. SandriniPrimo
2013
Abstract
This article addresses Regulation EC No 261/2004 in so far as it deals with delay in the carriage of passengers by air, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the joined cases Nelson and TUI Travel. It considers whether this recent judgment is consistent with the Montreal Convention of 1999 reaching the overall conclusion that it is not. This unsatisfactory result is due to purpose of ensuring a level of protection for passenger higher than that provided by the international uniform rules. This aim has been achieved affirming the interpretation of the Regulation provided in the Sturgeon case, in which the Court went far beyond the wording of the Regulation, and in the IATA case, in which the Court advanced an untenable and ambiguous construction of the relationship between the Montreal Convention and Regulation No 261/2004. Conversely, in deciding the joined cases, the Court neglected its duty to interpret according to the proper criteria provided by international law the treaties ratified by the EU, and failed to ensure that the EU respect its duty as contracting party.Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.