The Case Law Of The Court Of Justice Of The EU On Art. 17 Of The 1999 Montreal Convention: An Evaluation From A Comparative Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on Article 17(1) of the 1999 Montreal Convention (MC99) regarding the liability of international air carriers for death or bodily injury to passengers. The interpretational principles and methods applied by the CJEU are examined, accounting also for the particularities of the EU legal order. Furthermore, the results reached by the CJEU are compared with the case law of other jurisdictions, mainly the US, and doctrinal writings. Nonetheless, this paper does not explore the pertinent issues from a de lege ferenda perspective. The paper concludes that the judgments of the CJEU on Art. 17(1) MC99 have interpreted the notions of “passenger,” “accident,” and “bodily injury” broadly, in a passenger-friendly way. Although the interpretation of ‘passenger’ does not differ from the established case law in other jurisdictions, some aspects of the interpretation of “accident” and the interpretation of “bodily injury” significantly depart from the view currently prevailing among courts internationally. The CJEU has yet to rule on the scope of the exclusivity of the MC99, under Art. 29 thereof, regarding personal injury of passengers. However, the expansive interpretations of “accident” and “bodily injury” by the CJEU limit the practical effect of Article 29 compared to other jurisdictions. Given the regulatory influence that the EU exercises world- wide, the CJEU judgments might guide courts also outside the EU. Although this would bolster passenger protection, it would exacerbate the already fragmented application of the MC99 internationally.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".