• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2017

On 12 October 2017, the English Royal Courts of Justice delivered its decision about air carrier's compensation liability for the flight delay. In the cases the passengers suffered delays at a connecting point and, consequently, on arrival at their final destination. They claimed compensation under Regulation 261/2004 (the "Regulation"), as applied by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") in Sturgeon v. Condor [2009]. The principal issues were whether delays suffered by the passengers during the second leg of their respective journeys were compensable under the Regulation, whether there was jurisdiction under the Regulation and whether the right to compensation under the Regulation is, insofar as non-Community air carriers are concerned, excluded by virtue of the exclusive liability regime established under the Montreal Convention 1999. The passengers, the plaintiff, argued that the relevant delay was not that on flight 1 but that suffered at the "final destination". They maintained that there was no exercise by the EU of extraterritorial jurisdiction as the delay on flight 2 was merely relevant to the calculation of the amount of compensation due under the Regulation. The air carrier, the defendant, however argued that the only relevant flights for the purpose of calculating any delay were the first flights (flights 1) out of EU airspace, as only these flights fell within the scope of the Regulation; the connecting flights (flights 2) were not relevant since they were performed entirely outside of the EU by a non-Community carrier. Regarding the issue of what counts as a delay under the Regulation, the CJEU held previously on another precedents that the operating carrier's liability to pay compensation depends on the passenger's delay in arriving at the "final destination". It held that where the air carrier provides a passenger with more than one directly connecting flight to enable him to arrive at their destination, the flights should be taken together for the purpose of assessing whether there has been three hours' or more delay on arrival; and that in case of directly connecting flights, the final destination is the place at which the passenger is scheduled to arrive at the end of the last component flight. In addition, the Court confirmed that the Regulation applied to flights operated by non-Community carriers out of EU airspace even if flight 1 or flight 2 lands outside the EU, since the Regulation does not require that a flight must land in the EU. Accordingly, the passengers' appeal from the lower Court was allowed, while that of air carrier was dismissed. The Court has come down firmly on the side of the passengers in this legal debate. However, this result is not a great surprise considering the recent trends of EU member states' court decisions in the fields of air transport and consumer protection. The main goal of this article is to review the Court's decision and to search historical trend of air consumer protection especially in EU area.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.201-216
• /
• 2018

After the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union's Common Commercial Policy now belongs to the exclusive competence area of the EU, including the foreign direct investment (FDI) policy. Regarding the bilateral investment protection treaties (BITs) between the EU Member States, the European Commission is of the view that such BITs should be discarded. On March 6, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in the Achmea BV v. Slovakia case that a BIT between the EU Member States, as well as arbitral awards based on that BIT, is not subject to request for preliminary rulings under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and thus they are not compatible with the EU law. However, the judgment did not silence the controversy. Instead, many people questioned the legal reasoning and the legitimacy of judgment, and therefore the problem is still ongoing.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.261-282
• /
• 2012

The European Union (EU) has introduced the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) as one of the key policies to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions and in July 2008, they decided to include aviation in the scheme. As soon as the decision was announced the EU ETS was met by sharp opposition from world governments and international aviation. A group of US airlines, in particular, dropped a lawsuit against the British government over aviation's inclusion in the EU ETS. On 21 December, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that aviation's inclusion in the EU ETS which covers all flights arriving into and departing from the EU is legal and does not contravene international law. The scheme eventually came into effect on 1 January 2012. However, most countries are in opposition to the EU ETS and have agreed on counter-measures to undermine the EU's plan which may bring chaos to the aviation industry if such measures were to put into practice. This study therefore will analyze the likely effects that may be brought to the Korean aviation industry as a result of the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS. Further, it hopes to contribute to the Korean aviation industry by studying other countries' counter-measures in advance.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.26 no.5
• /
• pp.1269-1277
• /
• 2016

European Union and United States have introduced new Privacy Shield agreement after decision of Court of Justice of the European Union which invalidated Safe Harbor agreement. Privacy Shield agreement contains several clauses to raise the level of personal data protection such as enhanced commitments, stronger enforcement, clear safeguards and transparency obligations, and effective protection of EU citizens' rights with several redress possibilities. This agreement has received positive response as an enhanced measure for personal data protection. This paper examines EU and US discussion history and current situation regarding Privacy Shield and suggests national policy direction such as measures for personal data transborder flow system improvement and international cooperation.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.197-224
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews and criticizes some issues as to the case of A and Others v. Finnair Oyj [2020] Case C-832/18 by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Under this case, the travellers brought an action against Finnair in light of the Air Passenger Regulation12, seeking compensation for both the first cancelled flight, and the delayed re-routed flight. Finnair had paid the first compensation, but refused to grant the second claim, arguing that the regulation did not set out that passengers were eligible for a second claim in those situations, and that the delay of the second flight was a consequence of 'extraordinary circumstances' under the regulation. The Court of Appeal in Helsinki has asked the CJEU whether an air passenger is entitled to a further compensation where a re-routed flight they have agreed to take is delayed, where both the original and rerouted flight are operated by the same air carrier. The CJEU held that the regulation does not in any way limit the rights of passengers where they find their flights being re-routed. As such, under earlier CJEU case law, the relevant travellers here were entitled to compensation for cancellation of the first flight and delay of the second flight. It also disagreed with Finnair's assessment that the technical failure in the re-routing flight was a matter of extraordinary circumstances.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.249-277
• /
• 2015

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 ("Regulation") is a common rule on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. In some recent cases of European nations, passengers sued the air carrier in order to obtain monetary compensation under Article 7(1) of the Regulation. Some courts dismissed the actions on the grounds that, unlike denied boarding or cancellation of the flight, the Regulation provides no compensation in relation to delayed flights. However, Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) ruled that Regulation 261/2004 must be interpreted to mean that passengers whose flights are delayed have a right to compensation in cases when the loss of time is equivalent to, or is in excess of three hours - where the passengers eventually reached their final destination three hours or more later than the originally scheduled arrival time. It is true that a strict interpretation of the regulation would suggest that passengers whose flight has merely been delayed are not entitled to compensation. They should only be offered assistance in accordance with the Articles 6 and 9. Nevertheless, the Court recognized the same right to the same compensation for passengers of flights delayed by more than three hours as that explicitly provided for passengers of cancelled flights. On the one hand, the Court bases this ruling on the recitals of the Regulation, in which the legislature links the question of compensation to that of a long delay, while indicating that the Regulations seek to ensure a high level of protection for passengers regardless of whether they are denied boarding or their flight is cancelled or delayed. On the other hand, the Court interprets the relevant provisions of the Regulation in light of the general principle of equal treatment. Furthermore, the Court delivered a ruling that the loss of time inherent in a flight delay, which constitutes an inconvenience within the intention of Regulation No 261/2004 and which cannot be categorized as 'damage occasioned by delay' within the meaning of Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, cannot come within the scope of Article 29 of that convention. Consequently, under this view, the obligation under Regulation No 261/2004 intended to compensate passengers whose flights are subject to a long delay is in line with Article 29 of the Montreal Convention. Although the above interpretation of the Court can be a analogical interpretation, the progressive attitude of the Regulation and the view of Court forward to protect passengers' interest is a leading role in the area of international air passenger transportation. Hopefully, after the model of the positive support in Europe, Korea can establish a concrete rule for protecting passengers' right and interest.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.103-125
• /
• 2020

This paper reviews the EU Case, Claudia Wegener v. Royal Air Maroc SA [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:361, Case C-537/17. It analyzes some issues as to Wegener case by examining EU Regulations and practical point of views. Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, entitled scope, provides: "this Regulation shall apply: (a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies; (b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier." ECJ held that must be interpreted as meaning that Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 applies to a passenger transport effected under a single booking and comprising, between its departure from an airport situated in the territory of a Member State and its arrival at an airport situated in the territory of a third State, a scheduled stopover outside the European Union with a change of aircraft. According to the Court, it is apparent from the regulation and case-law that when, as in the present case, two (or more) flights are booked as a single unit, those flights constitute a whole for the purposes of the right to compensation for passengers. Those flights must therefore be considered as one and the same connecting flight.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.135-167
• /
• 2006

Air service agreements between EU Member States and third countries concluded by Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom after the Second World War infringe EU law. They authorize the third countries to withdraw, suspend or limit the traffic rights of air carriers designated by the signatory States. According to the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC), these agreements infringe EU law in two respects. On the one hand, the presence of nationality clauses infringes the right of European airlines to non-discriminatory market access to routes between all Member States and third countries. On the other hand, only the EU has the authority to sign up to this type of commitment where agreements affect the exercise of EU competence, i.e. involve an area covered by EU legislation. The Court held that since the third countries have the right to refuse a carrier, these agreements therefore constitute an obstacle to the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, as the opening of European skies to third countries' companies is not reciprocal for all EU airlines. In the conclusion, in order to reconstruct these public international air law, The new negotiations between EU member states and third countries, especially the US, must be designed to ensure an adequate set of principles, so that Member States, in their bilateral relations with third countries in the area of air service, should consider following three models. The 1st, to develop a new model of public international air law such as a new Bermuda III. The 2nd, to reconstruct new freedoms of the air, for example, the 7th, 8th, and 9th freedoms. The 3rd, to explore new approaching models, such as complex system theory explored in the recent social sciences, to make access world-wide global problems instead of bilateral problems between EU member states and United States. The example will show any lessons to air talks between European Union and ROK.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.327-353
• /
• 2017

The issue submitted to the Court of Justice on the merits of case C---573/13 originated from a claim brought in the context of a dispute between Air Berlin and the German Federal Union of Consumer Organisations and Associations. The challenge concerned the way in which air fares were displayed in Air Berlin's computerised booking system. The system was organised in such a way that, after selecting a date and a departure airport, one would find all possible flight connections in a summary table. However, the final price of the ticket was displayed only for the clicked connection, and not for all connections, thus preventing customers from being able to compare such price with the prices of other connections. The German Federal Union took the view that this practice did not meet the requirements laid down by Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008, which requires transparency in the prices set for air services. This led the German State to bring an injunctive action to cause Air Berlin to discontinue said practice. The claim was upheld at both the application and appeal stage of the relevant proceedings. Subsequently, Air Berlin submitted the matter to the German Federal High Court, which decided to stay the proceedings and ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice as to 1. whether Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, during the computerised booking process, the final price to be paid must be indicated at all times when prices of air services are shown, including when they are shown for the first time; and 2. whether, during the computerised booking process, the final price must be indicated only for the air service specifically selected by the customer or for each air service shown. In a nutshell, the Court, by the here---discussed judgment determined that Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No. 1008/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a computerised air ticket booking system, the final price to be paid must be indicated not only for the air service specifically selected by the customer, but also for each air service in respect of which the fare is shown. Clearly the above judgment will place air companies under an obligation to update and adjust (when needed) their computerised ticket booking and payment systems, in consideration of the primary need for consumers to be aware at all times of the actual price payable for a ticket and be able to compare the price of the service selected with the prices for other air services in respect of which the fare is shown.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.203-234
• /
• 2019

The concept of denied boarding is defined in Article 2(j) of Regulation 261/2004 thus: "denied boarding means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation." So far as relevant to this case, to be entitled to compensation, if denied boarding, Article 3(2) provides a passenger must first come within the scope of the protection of the Regulation, which applies under the following conditions: "${\cdots}$.that passengers (a) have a confirmed reservation on the flight concerned and, except in the case of cancellation referred to in Article 5, present themselves for check-in, as stipulated and at the time indicated in advance and in writing (including by electronic means) by the air carrier, the tour operator or an authorised travel agent, or, if no time is indicated, not later than 45 minutes before the published departure time." This paper reviews the EU Cases such as Rodríguez Cachafeiro v. Iberia [2012] Case C-321/11; Finnair Oyj v. Timy Lassooy [2012] Case C-22/11; Caldwell v. easyJet Airline Co. Ltd. [2015] ScotSC 64. ECJ and Sheriff court of Scotland held that the concept of denied boarding, within the meaning of Articles 2(j) and 4 of Regulation No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation No 295/91, must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons. Also, ECJ ruled that Articles 2(j) and 4(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of extraordinary circumstances resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.