Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

No Need to Know Where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is…

April 2, 2014/1 Comment/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

to initiate court proceedings.

But where?

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2014-04-02 06:26:032014-04-02 07:12:39No Need to Know Where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is…
1 reply
  1. Michael Chatzipanagiotis says:
    April 3, 2014 at 9:17 am

    Airline liability and judicial jurisdiction in cases of international aviation accidents is governed either by the 1999 Montreal Convention (MC) or by the so called “Warsaw System” (WS), which is based on the 1929 Warsaw Convention (WC) as has been amended by numerous conventions, additional protocols etc. The exact applicable rules depend on the agreed place of departure and the agreed place of arrival of each passenger as these (see Art. 1 MC and Art. 1 WC).
    Both sets of rules designate as competent [see Art. 33 (1) MC and Art. 28 WC]:
    1) the courts of the place where the carrier has its residence (if the carrier is a natural person)
    2) the courts of the place where the carrier has its actual place of business (if the carrier is a legal entity)
    3) the courts of the place where the contract has been concluded
    4) the courts of the agreed place of destination (in case of round trips, the place of destination is the same as the place of departure).

    However, the 1999 MC has added a “5th jurisdiction”, i.e. the place of the passenger’s residence, provided that the carrier is commercially active in that place [Art. 33 (2) MC]. The 5th jurisdiction is intended to cover, i.a., electronic conclude contracts.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
Link to: Trimble on Foreigners in US Patent Litigation Link to: Trimble on Foreigners in US Patent Litigation Trimble on Foreigners in US Patent Litigation Link to: Slovenian Supreme Court Rules on Service under Hague Convention Link to: Slovenian Supreme Court Rules on Service under Hague Convention Slovenian Supreme Court Rules on Service under Hague Convention
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top