• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2015

In case of C-410/11, Pedro Espada $S\acute{a}nchez$ and Others v Iberia $L\acute{i}neas$ $A\acute{e}reas$ de $Espa\tilde{n}a$ SA., ECLI:EU:C:2012:747, the passengers of a flight between Barcelona and Paris, whose baggage had been lost, lodged a claim before a Spanish court, asking for compensation. More specifically, the claimants were a family of four (two adults and two children), and had stored all their personal items in two suitcases, which had been checked in and tagged but never returned to the passengers in question. The four claimants relied on the Montreal Convention, ratified by the EU, which provides that each passenger can claim up to 1,000 SDRs in compensation (i.e. ${\euro}1,100$) in case his or her baggage is lost; thus, they sought to recover ${\euro}4,400$ (4,000 SDRs, i.e. 1,000 SDRs x4). The preliminary reference issue raised by the Spanish court to the CJEU regarded the $Montr\acute{e}al$ Convention's correct interpretation; in particular, it asked whether compensation should be available only to passengers whose lost baggage had been checked in "in their own name" or whether it is also available to passengers whose personal items had been stored in the (lost) baggage of a different passenger. The CJEU held that compensation had to be granted to all passengers whose items had been lost, regardless of whether these had been stored in baggage checked in "in their own name." In fact, it maintained that the real aim of the $Montr\acute{e}al$ convention is to provide passenger-consumers with protection for the loss of their personal belongings, so the circumstance of where these were being carried is not relevant. Nevertheless, the CJEU clarified that it is for national courts to assess the evidence regarding the actual loss of an item stored in another passenger's baggage, and maintained that the fact that a group of people were travelling together as a family is a factor that may be taken into account.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2017

The Korean government enacted the Chapter 6 as of Air Transportation to the Korean Commercial Act, which was enforced in 2011, in order to treat some arguments occurred from air transportation Contracts since air transportations has rapidly increased in Korea. Air transportations has been used more in the field of international market than in the field of domestic market under it's own characteristic. Therefore, many international agreements and protocols related to the air transportations has been appeared from old times and the 1999 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ("Montreal Convention") is one of them. The Montreal Convention was adopted in May 28, 1999 at International Conference of Air Law hosted by the International Civil Aviation Organization ("ICAO") in Montreal, Canada where the Headquarter of ICAO is located. The Montreal Convention has been effected from September 5, 2003 and the Korean government ratified the convention in 2007. Therefore, the Montreal Convention came in to force in Korea since 2007. This year, 2017, is the 10th anniversary year since the Montreal Convention has taken effect in Korea. However, there are rare cases that argued the Montreal Convention's scope of application and this Article examines the Korean Supreme Court's case that argued the Convention's scope of application. Thus the Article basically analyzes the case from the perspective of the Montreal Convention's scope of application and examines the Montreal Convention's articles related to the air carrier's liability and extent of compensation for damage that occurred from the international carriage by air. Also this Article analyzes the Korean Commercial Act Chapter 6, which regulated the air carrier's liability and the Article tries to make a comparison between the Montreal Convention and the Korean Commercial Act in order to draw some scheme for the betterment of Korean Commercial Act. It is the hope that the Article contribute to the improvement of Korean Commercial Act through the comparison with the chance of the 10th Anniversary of the Montreal Convention in Korea.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.31-66
• /
• 2008

Until Montreal Convention was established in 1999, the Warsaw System is undoubtedly accepted private international air law treaty and has played major role on the carrier's liability in international aviation transport industry. But the whole Warsaw System, though it was revised many times to meet the rapid developments of the aviation transport industry, is so complicated, tangled and outdated. This thesis, therefore, aim to introduce the Montreal Convention by interpreting it as a new legal instrument on the air carrier's liability, specially on the passenger's, and analyzing all the issues relating to it. The Montreal Convention markedly changed the rules governing international carriage by air. The Montreal Convention has modernized and consolidated the old Warsaw System of international instruments of private international air law into one legal instrument. One of the most significant features of the Montreal Convention is that it sifted its priority to the protection of the interest of the consumers from the protection of the carrier which originally the Warsaw Convention intended to protect the fledgling international air transport business. Two major features of the Montreal Convention adopts are the Two-tier Liability System and the Fifth Jurisdiction. In case of death or bodily injury to passengers, the Montreal Convention introduces a two-tier liability system. The first tier includes strict liability up to 100,000SDR, irrespective of carriers' fault. The second tier is based on presumption of fault of carrier and has no limit of liability. Regarding Jurisdiction, the Montreal Convention expands upon the four jurisdiction in which the carrier could be sued by adding a fifth jurisdiction, i.e., a passenger can bring suit in a country in which he or she has their permanent and principal residence and in which the carrier provides a services for the carriage of passengers by either its own aircraft or through a commercial agreement. Other features are introducing the advance payment, electronic ticketing, compulsory insurance and regulation on the contracting and actual carrier etc. As we see some major features of the Montreal Convention, the Convention heralds the single biggest change in the international aviation liability and there can be no doubt it will prevail the international aviation transport world in the future. Our government signed this Convention on 20th Sep. 2007 and it came into effect on 29th Dec. 2007 domestically. Thus, it was recognized that domestic carriers can adequately and independently manage the change of risks of liability. I, therefore, would like to suggest our country's aviation industry including newly-born low cost carrier prepare some countermeasures domestically that are necessary to the enforcement of the Convention.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.201-248
• /
• 2015

In Korea the number of unlawful interference act on board aircrafts has been increased continuously according to the growth of aviation demand, and there were 55 incidents in 2000, followed by 354 incidents in 2014, and an average of 211 incidents a year over the past five years. In 1963, a number of states adopted the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (the Tokyo Convention 1963) as the first worldwide international legal instrument on aviation security. The Tokyo Convention took effect in 1969 and, shortly afterward, in 1970 the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Hague Convention 1970) was adopted, and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation(the Montreal Convention 1971) was adopted in 1971. After 9/11 incidents in 2001, to amend and supplement the Montreal Convention 1971, the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation(the Beijing Convention 2010) was adopted in 2010, and to supplement the Hague Convention 1970, the Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft(the Beijing Protocol 2010) was adopted in 2010. Since then, in response to increased cases of unruly behavior on board aircrafts which escalated in both severity and frequency,, the Montreal Protocol which is seen as an amendment to the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft(the Tokyo Convention 1963) was adopted in 2014. Korea ratified the Tokyo Convention 1963, the Hague Convention 1970, the Montreal Convention 1971, the Montreal Supplementary Protocol 1988, and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosive 1991 which have proven to be effective. Under the Tokyo Convention ratified in 1970, Korea further enacted the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in 1974, as well as the Aviation Safety and Security Act that replaced the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in August 2002. Meanwhile, the title of the Aviation Safety and Security Act was changed to the Aviation Security Act in April 2014. The Aviation Security Act is essentially an implementing legislation of the Tokyo Convention and Hague Convention. Also the language of the Aviation Security Act is generally broader than the unruly and disruptive behavior in Sections 1-3 of the model legislation in ICAO Circular 288. The Aviation Security Act has reflected the considerable parts of the implementation of national legislation under the Beijing Convention and Beijing Protocol 2010, and the Montreal Protocol 2014 that are the modernized international conventions relating to aviation security. However, in future, when these international conventions would come into effect and Korea would ratify them, the national legislation that should be amended or provided newly in the Aviation Security Act are as followings : The jurisdiction, the definition of 'in flight', the immunity from the actions against the aircraft commander, etc., the compulsory delivery of the offender by the aircraft commander, etc., the strengthening of penalty on the person breaking the law, the enlargement of application to the accomplice, and the observance of international convention. Among them, particularly the Korean legislation is silent on the scope of the jurisdiction. Therefore, in order for jurisdiction to be extended to the extra-territorial cases of unruly and disruptive offences, it is desirable that either the Aviation Security Act or the general Crime Codes should be revised. In conclusion, in order to meet the intelligent and diverse aviation threats, the Korean government should review closely the contents of international conventions relating to aviation security and the current ratification status of international conventions by each state, and make effort to improve the legislation relating to aviation security and the aviation security system for the ratification of international conventions and the implementation of national legislation under international conventions.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2012

The Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air was adopted in 1929. In 1999, the ICAO adopted the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air vastly modernizing the unification of private air law. The Montreal Convention replaced the instruments of the Warsaw system, and came into force on 4 November 2003. The Montreal Convention is not only an international convention. It has also exercised a considerable influence on national legislation. Korea has made the national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of Commercial Act on April 29, 2011, and it has brought into force on November 24, 2011. The national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of Commercial Act of Korea has the provisions on the liability for damage caused to passenger, the liability for damage caused to baggage, and the liability for damage caused to cargo. The main feature of the liability regime of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention is the two-tier liability system for death or injury of the passenger with strict liability up to 100,000 SDR and presumptive liability with a reversed burden of proof without any limit above that threshold. The national legislation of the Part VI the Carriage by Air of the Commercial Act of Korea has adopted the main principles of the liability of the air carrier under the Montreal Convention. In conclusion, the national legislation relating to the liability of the air carrier by the Korean government will contribute to settle efficiently the dispute on the carrier' liability in respect of the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air, and to provide proper compensation to the passenger or consignor who has suffered damage, subject to the defenses and limitations it sets out.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2020

The term "accident" in the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and the Montreal Convention of 1999, which govern carrier liability in international air transport, is an important criterion for determining carrier liability. However, because there is no explicit definition of the term in the treaty provisions, the term is largely subjected to the judgment and interpretation of the courts. Although there have been numerous changes in purpose and circumstance in the transition from the Warsaw regime to the conclusion of the Montreal Convention, there was no discussion on the concept of "accident" therefore, even after the adoption of the Montreal Convention, there is no doubt that the term is to be interpreted in the same manner as before. On this point, the United States Supreme Court's Air France v. Saks clarified the concept of "accident" and is still cited as an important precedent. Recently, the CJEU, in GN v. ZU, presented a new concept of "accident" introduced in the Montreal Convention: that "reference must be made to the ordinary meaning" in interpreting "accident" and that the term "covers all situations occurring on aboard an aircraft." Furthermore, the CJEU ruled that the term does not include the applicability of "hazards typically associated with aviation," which was controversial in previous cases. Such an interpretation can be reasonably seen as the court's expansion of the concept of "accident," with a focus on "protecting consumer interests," a core tenet of both the Montreal convention and the European Union Regulations(EC: No 889/2002). The CJEU's independent interpretation of "accident" is a departure from the Warsaw Convention and the Saks case, with their focus on "carrier protection," and instead focuses on the "passenger protection" standard of the Montreal Convention. Consequently, this expands both the court's discretion and the carrier's risk management liability. Such an interpretation by the CJEU can be said to be in line with the purpose of the Montreal Convention in terms of "passenger protection." However, there are problems to be considered in tandem with an expanded interpretation of "accident." First, there may be controversy concerning "balance" in that it focused on "passenger protection" in relation to the "equitable balance of interests" between air carriers and passengers, which is the basic purpose of the agreement. Second, huge losses are expected as many airlines fly to countries within the European Union. Third, there is now a gap in the interpretation of "accident" in Europe and the United States, which raises a question on the "unity of rules," another basic tenet of the Convention. Fourth, this interpretation of "accident" by the CJEU raises questions regarding its scope of application, as it only refers to the "hazards typically associated with aviation" and "situations occurring aboard an aircraft." In this case, the CJEU newly proposed a novel criterion for the interpretation of "accident" under the Montreal Convention. As this presents food for thought on the interpretation of "accident," it is necessary to pay close attention to any changes in court rulings in the future. In addition, it suggests that active measures be taken for passenger safety by recognizing air carriers' unlimited liability and conducting systematic reforms.

• Journal of the korean Society of Automotive Engineers
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.1-11
• /
• 1994

여기서는 자동차를 중심으로한 동 부문에 새롭게 닥쳐오고 있는 그린 충격파, 즉, 몬트리올 의정서와 기후변화협약에 대해 알아보고 이에 대한 대응방안을 살펴 보고자 한다. 1. 자동차 관련 환경문제. 2. 몬트리올 의정서 : 지구 오존층파괴 규제. 3. 기후변화협약 : 지구온난화현상 규제. 4. 수송부문의 에너지절약대책.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to research the requirements and effect of the document of carriage in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999, IATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo, and the judicial precedents of Korea and foreign countries. Under the Article 4 of Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, an air waybill shall be delivered. If any other means which preserves a record of the carriage are used, the carrier shall, if so requested by the consignor, deliver to the consignor a cargo receipt. Under the Article 7 of Montreal convention, the air waybill shall be made out by the consignor. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes it out, the carrier shall be deemed to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three original parts. The first part shall be marked "for the carrier", and shall be signed by the consignor. The second part shall be marked "for the consignee", and shall be signed by the consignor and by the carrier. The third part shall be signed by the carrier who shall hand it to the consignor after the goods have been accepted. Under the Article 5 of Montreal Convention, the air waybill or the cargo receipt shall include (a) an indication of the places of departure and destination, (b) an indication of at least one agreed stopping place, (c) an indication of the weight of the consignment. Under the Article 10 of Montreal Convention, the consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statement furnished by the consignor or on its behalf. Under the Article 9 of Montreal Convention, non-compliance with the Article 4 to 8 of Montreal Convention shall not affect the existence of the validity of the contract, which shall be subject to the rules of Montreal Convention including those relating to limitation of liability. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Article 11 of Montreal Convention, the air waybill or cargo receipt is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. Under the Article 12 of Montreal Convention, if the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of that part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt. According to the precedent of Korea Supreme Court sentenced on 22 July 2004, the freight forwarder as carrier was not liable for the illegal delivery of cargo to the notify party (actual importer) on the air waybill by the operator of the bonded warehouse because the freighter did not designate the boned warehouse and did not hold the position of employer to the operator of the bonded warehouse. In conclusion, as the Korea Customs Authorities will drive the e-Freight project for the carriage of cargo by air, the carrier and freight forwarder should pay attention to the requirements and legal effect of the electronic documentation of the carriage of cargo by air.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.24 no.2
• /
• pp.3-17
• /
• 2009

The Rome Convention System (1933, 1952, 1978) which deal the third party lability relating to damage caused by aircraft to third parties on the surface have not been so effective and successful like the Warsaw Convention System. This paper briefs the development of the Rome Convention System and the reasons of their failure which are the low level of the limit of liability and non-parties of major civil aviation states such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and etc. The Diplomatic Conference hosted by ICAO at Montreal during April 20 to May 2 has successfully produced two Conventions; One is Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties (General Risk Convention), the other is Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties, Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference involving Aircraft (Unlawful Interference Convention). The major contents and some problems of these two Conventions are reviewed in comparison with the exisiting Rome Convention System and other legal system. Particularly, the entrance into force of the Unlawful Interference Convention may take some time, at least more than 5 years, due to the realistic problems arising from the operation of International Civil Aviation Fund.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.279-310
• /
• 2015

The Montreal Convention is an agreement that governs the liability of air carriers for injury and death to passengers travelling internationally by air. The Montreal Convention serves as the exclusive legal framework for victims and survivors seeking compensation for injuries or death arising from accidents involving international air travel. The Montreal Convention sets monetary liability caps on damages in order to promote the financial stability of the international airline transport industry and protect the industry from exorbitant damages awards in courts that would inevitably bankrupt an airline. The Convention allows a litigant suing under the Convention to avoid the liability caps in instances where the airline's culpability for the injury or death is the direct result of negligence, another wrongful act, or an omission of the airline or its agents. The Montreal Convention identifies specific locations as appropriate venues to advance claims for litigants seeking compensation. These venues are closely tied to either the carrier's business operations or the passenger's domicile. In March 2015, in an act of suicide stemming from reactive depression, the co-pilot of Germanwings flight 9525 intentionally crashed the aircraft into the French Alps killing the passengers and the remaining crew. Subsequent to the crash, there were media reports that Lufthansa made varying settlement offers to families of the passengers who died aboard the flight ranging from $8,300 USD to $4.5 Million USD depending on the passengers' citizenship. The unverified offers by Lufthansa prompted outcries from the families of the decedent passengers that they would institute suit against the airline in a more plaintiff friendly jurisdiction such as the United States. The first part of this article accomplishes two goals. First, it examines the Montreal Convention's venue requirement along with an overview of the recoverable damages from countries comprising the citizenship of the passengers who were not American. The intentional crash of Germanwings flight 9525 by its First Officer encompasses the possibility that Lufthansa may be exposed to unlimited compensatory damages beyond the liability caps contained in the Convention. The second part of this article explores the application of the Convention's liability limits to the Germanwings flight to demonstrate that the likelihood of escaping the liability limits is slim.