Preliminary Remarks. While the autonomy of the terms and concepts used in the Conventions was confirmed in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 showed that attempts made by Courts to give a definition to un-defined terms and concepts resulted in divergent interpretations. One could wonder whether the autonomy of the terms used 136 Supremo Tribunal Federal, 25 May 2017, RE 636331/RJ. See, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Costa ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Seguridad jurídica vs. nueva caja de Pandora – Breves apuntes acerca de la reciente sentencia del Supremo Tribunal Federal en Brasil, 42 Revista Latino Americana de Derecho Aeronáutico (2018). 137 Trans Mediterranean Airways v. M/s Universal Exports & Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 316, at 32. 138 Juzgado Undécimo de Circuito de lo Civil del Primer Circuito Judicial de Panamá, 27 October 2017, Caisa c. KLM, Sentencia N° 25-2017, not published. This decision was over- ruled in Appeal. See, Primer Tribunal Superior del Primer Distrito Judicial, 25 April 2019, Caisa c. KLM, 18SA.069, not published. in the Conventions entails that each term should be interpreted according to a ‘special’ meaning pursuant to Article 31(4) of the 1969 Vienna Conven- tion, or if the ‘ordinary’ meaning developed under its Article 31(1) may be applicable.139
Appears in 3 contracts
Sources: Regime for International Air Carrier Liability, Montreal Convention, The Regime for International Air Carrier Liability