El pasajero aéreo desprotegido: obstáculos a la tutela judicial en litigios transfronterizos por incumplimientos de las compañías aéreas (A propósito de la STJUE de 9 julio 2009, Rehder, As. C-204/08)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen: A fin de precisar los tribunales competentes en demandas de compensacion de los pasajeros contra companias aereas por cancelacion de vuelos, el TJUE resuelve el problema de determinar el lugar de prestacion del servicio en el caso de obligaciones contractuales derivadas de un contrato de transporte aereo internacional. La solucion aportada [“en caso de transporte aereo de personas desde un Estado miembro con destino a otro Estado miembro, llevado a cabo en ejecucion de un contrato celebrado con una unica compania aerea que es el transportista efectivo, el tribunal competente para conocer de una demanda de compensacion basada en dicho contrato de transporte (…), es, a eleccion del demandante, aquel en cuya demarcacion se halle el lugar de salida o el lugar de llegada del avion, tal como dichos lugares esten previstos en el contrato”] puede contribuir a aplacar la desproteccion del pasajero, siempre que, bien el lugar de partida, bien el lugar de llegada, coincidan con el domicilio del pasajero. De otro modo, sigue sin poder acudir al forum actoris previsto para los contratos de consumo a pesar de cumplir con todas las circunstancias exigidas en el articulo 15 del Reglamento 44/2001. Palabras clave: transportes aereos, Reglamento 44/2001, Reglamento 261/2004 y Convenio de Montreal, demandas de compensacion por cancelacion de vuelos, tribunal del lugar de cumplimiento de la prestacion: organos jurisdiccionales de los lugares de partida y llegada, proteccion del consumidor. Abstract: In order to fix jurisdiction in suits against airlines for compensation in case of cancellation of flights, the Court of Justice of the European Union resolved the problem of determining the place where the service was rendered in the case of contractual obligations deriving from an international air transport contract. The solution given [‘in the case of air transport of passengers from one Member State to another Member State, carried out on the basis of a contract with only one airline, which is the operating carrier, the court having jurisdiction to deal with a claim for compensation founded on that transport contract (…) is that, at the applicant’s choice, which has territorial jurisdiction over the place of departure or place of arrival of the aircraft, as those places are agreed in that contract’] may contribute to alleviating the passenger’s lack of protection, as long as the place of departure or the place of arrival coincides with the passenger’s domicile. Otherwise, the passenger still cannot apply to the forum actoris stipulated for consumer contracts despite fulfilling all the circumstances demanded in Article 15 of Regulation 44/2001. Key words: air transport, Regulation 44/2001, Regulation 261/2004 and Montreal Convention, passenger claims for compensation in the case of flight cancellation, jurisdiction of the Court at the places of arrival and departure, consumer protection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".