Under the 1999 Montreal Convention Clause Samples

Under the 1999 Montreal Convention. The 1999 Montreal Convention, after keeping the four fora agreed upon in the 1929 Warsaw Convention, and the two adopted in the 1961 Guadalajara Convention,191 established one additional jurisdiction known as the ‘fifth jurisdiction’.192 This newcomer193 permits, under limited conditions, to bring action in a territory where, at the time of the accident, the passenger holds principal and permanent residence. The United States strongly advo- cated for such an additional jurisdiction, arguing, among others things, that it would bring passengers further legal certainty.194 During the 1999 Montreal Conference, the delegate for Egypt noted that a fifth jurisdiction was not needed, explaining that: In the case of an accident, a carrier could be subjected to appear before many courts in different jurisdictions, […].195 The delegate for France highlighted that the coexistence of parallel proceed- ings increased the risk of ending up with opposite decisions: […] rather than advancing the unification and internationalization of law with a view to ensuring the identical treatment of persons under a single worldwide legal system, the result would be the further fragmentation of international law.196 Intense discussions continued around the adoption of this new forum.197 There was a fear that a practice of forum shopping would develop. It was suggested that the doctrine forum non conveniens, a domestic procedure law standard in many common law jurisdictions, could mitigate this risk.198 191 See, section 4.2.1.2. 192 1999 Montreal Convention, Articles 33 and 46. 193 Although already discussed in the 1971 Guatemala City Protocol. 194 ICAO Doc 9775, International Conference on Air Law (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air), Montreal, 10 – 28 May 1999, volume II, Documents, Montreal 1999, p. 102: ‘The passenger’s home State is where most claimants are located, and that country’s courts would usually apply the laws and standards of recovery that would be anticipated by such passengers or claimants’. 195 ICAO Doc 9775, International Conference on Air Law (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air), Montreal, 10 – 28 May 1999, volume I, Minutes, Montreal 1999, p. 143. 196 Ibid., p. 105. 197 Ibid., p. 143-187, 205, 235. 198 See, Ibid., p. 108. The Chairman also wondered whether it would be appropriate to codify and incorporate such doctrine in the convention. See, Ibid., p. 148,149 and 158. Th...
View SourceView Similar (4)
Under the 1999 Montreal Convention. It was only in 1999 that this purpose of balance was officially written in the fifth paragraph of the preamble of the 1999 Montreal Convention, as follows: Convinced that collective State action for further harmonization and codification of certain rules governing international carriage by air through a new Conven- tion is the most adequate means of achieving an equitable balance of interests […]. The Travaux Préparatoires of the 1999 Montreal Convention regularly under- line the importance of reaching an acceptable balance between the rights of the different actors, as highlighted here, for example, in the Minutes: […] to seek a balance between the interests of the passengers i.e. the users of international air transportation, the carriers, and the general public, to ensure that a great measure of equity would emerge which would command wide- spread and substantial support and which would enable a greater degree of uni- formity and ratifiability,46 However, in comparison to the situation that existed beforehand, where carriers in particular needed to be protected as part of an emerging industry, the paradigm shift already initiated in the 1955 Hague Protocol went even further with the appearance of consumer protection as a notion in the preamble of the 1999 Montreal Convention. The third paragraph of the preamble reads: Recognizing the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution. It is necessary to understand how the references to the importance of ‘ensuring protection of the interests of consumers’ (third paragraph of the preamble of MC99) and the need to achieve ‘an equitable balance of interests’ 45 See, for example, in the United Kingdom, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, (2002) UKHL 7, at 66. 46 ICAO Doc 9775, International Conference on Air Law (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air), Montreal, 10 – 28 May 1999, volume I, Minutes, Montreal 1999, p. 110; See also, Ibid., p. 94: ‘[…] in striking that delicate balance between the interests of the consumer, the interest of the air carrier, and the need to ensure that there were was certainty, predictability and, as far as possible, uniformity in the system, it was necessary to achieve a text which could command widespread and substantial support […] so that it would indeed be ratifiable’. (fifth paragraph of the preamble of MC99)...
View Source

Related to Under the 1999 Montreal Convention

  • citizens abroad Unless the circumstances described in the parenthetical in paragraph 1 above are applicable, either (a) at the time the buy order was originated, the buyer was outside the United States or we and any person acting on our behalf reasonably believed that the buyer was outside the United States or (b) the transaction was executed in, on or through the facilities of a designated offshore securities market, and neither we nor any person acting on our behalf knows that the transaction was pre-arranged with a buyer in the United States.

  • Joint Funded Project with the Ohio Department of Transportation In the event that the Recipient does not have contracting authority over project engineering, construction, or right-of-way, the Recipient and the OPWC hereby assign certain responsibilities to the Ohio Department of Transportation, an authorized representative of the State of Ohio. Notwithstanding Sections 4, 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), and 7 of the Project Agreement, Recipient hereby acknowledges that upon notification by the Ohio Department of Transportation, all payments for eligible project costs will be disbursed by the Grantor directly to the Ohio Department of Transportation. A Memorandum of Funds issued by the Ohio Department of Transportation shall be used to certify the estimated project costs. Upon receipt of a Memorandum of Funds from the Ohio Department of Transportation, the OPWC shall transfer funds directly to the Ohio Department of Transportation via an Intra- State Transfer Voucher. The amount or amounts transferred shall be determined by applying the Participation Percentages defined in Appendix D to those eligible project costs within the Memorandum of Funds. In the event that the Project Scope is for right-of-way only, notwithstanding Appendix D, the OPWC shall pay for 100% of the right-of-way costs not to exceed the total financial assistance provided in Appendix C.

  • Accounting Methods and Financial Records Maintain a system of accounting, and keep such books, records and accounts (which shall be true and complete in all material respects) as may be required or as may be necessary to permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP and in compliance with the regulations of any Governmental Authority having jurisdiction over it or any of its properties.

  • Enterprise Information Management Standards Performing Agency shall conform to HHS standards for data management as described by the policies of the HHS Chief Data and Analytics Officer. These include, but are not limited to, standards for documentation and communication of data models, metadata, and other data definition methods that are required by HHS for ongoing data governance, strategic portfolio analysis, interoperability planning, and valuation of HHS System data assets.

  • Framework Management Structure The Supplier shall provide a suitably qualified nominated contact (the “Supplier Framework Manager”) who will take overall responsibility for delivering the Goods and/or Services required within this Framework Agreement, as well as a suitably qualified deputy to act in their absence. The Supplier shall put in place a structure to manage the Framework in accordance with Framework Schedule 2 (Goods and/or Services and Key Performance Indicators). A full governance structure for the Framework will be agreed between the Parties during the Framework Agreement implementation stage. Following discussions between the Parties following the Framework Commencement Date, the Authority shall produce and issue to the Supplier a draft Supplier Action Plan. The Supplier shall not unreasonably withhold its agreement to the draft Supplier Action Plan. The Supplier Action Plan shall, unless the Authority otherwise Approves, be agreed between the Parties and come into effect within two weeks from receipt by the Supplier of the draft Supplier Action Plan. The Supplier Action Plan shall be maintained and updated on an ongoing basis by the Authority. Any changes to the Supplier Action Plan shall be notified by the Authority to the Supplier. The Supplier shall not unreasonably withhold its agreement to any changes to the Supplier Action Plan. Any such changes shall, unless the Authority otherwise Approves, be agreed between the Parties and come into effect within two weeks from receipt by the Supplier of the Authority’s notification. Regular performance review meetings will take place at the Authority’s premises throughout the Framework Period and thereafter until the Framework Expiry Date (“Supplier Review Meetings”). The exact timings and frequencies of such Supplier Review Meetings will be determined by the Authority following the conclusion of the Framework Agreement. It is anticipated that the frequency of the Supplier Review Meetings will be once every month or less. The Parties shall be flexible about the timings of these meetings. The purpose of the Supplier Review Meetings will be to review the Supplier’s performance under this Framework Agreement and, where applicable, the Supplier’s adherence to the Supplier Action Plan. The agenda for each Supplier Review Meeting shall be set by the Authority and communicated to the Supplier in advance of that meeting. The Supplier Review Meetings shall be attended, as a minimum, by the Authority Representative(s) and the Supplier Framework Manager.