La Corte di Cassazione Italiana si pronuncia sulla distribuzione del carico probatorio in relazione alla responsabilità del vettore aereo per ritardo e ai fini della compensazione pecuniaria di cui al reg. (CE) n. 261/2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Italian Court of Cassation expresses its point of view on air carrier liability for delay. Applying a general principle elaborated since 2001, the Court has established that the passenger must provide proof of the contract and of the damage suffered as a result of the loss of time. He can, instead, simply report the delay and its duration. On the other hand, the carrier must demonstrate a regular transport, or its impossibility due to reason beyond his control. According to the Italian Supreme Court, the Montreal Convention System and the Reg. (EU) n. 261/2004 dictate absolutely parallel rules, so that in both cases the carrier may, in any case, avoid compensation simply by proving the causal connection between the delay and the unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure. In this decision it is therefore possible to identify two distinct parts. The first one, concerning the lack of burden on the passenger to prove the delay, is perfectly acceptable. The same consideration cannot be made for the second one, characterized by questionable reflections on the exonerating proof of the carrier and on the legal nature of the right to compensation under Art. 7 Reg. (EU) n. 261/2004.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".