The Montreal Convention, EU Regulation 261/2004, and the Sturgeon Doctrine: How to Reconcile the Three?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on Sturgeon v. Condor Flugdienst and subsequent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as the ultimate example of Regulation 261/2004's failure to adequately address passenger rights in the framework of international air law and the confusing aftermath it has visited on European air law. The article opens with a brief overview of EU regulation of passenger rights, followed by an analysis of passenger rights regulation in the Montreal Convention. Next, the current issues that exist around the relationship between the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions and the regulation of passenger rights at the European level are discussed, followed by an analysis of the Sturgeon judgment and recent cases of the CJEU confirming it in light of international air law and constitutional EU law. The article concludes that the Regulation is flawed in light of international air law as well as in light of principles of EU law such as the separation of powers of the EU institutions, legal certainty, transparency, and legitimate expectations. In the author's view, the Court gave too much importance to the principle of equality to the detriment of international law and the other principles of EU law. The author prefers a thorough revision of the Regulation over drafting a new one to avoid repetition of the chaos that has resulted from the CJEU judgments.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".