La giurisdizione nel trasporto aereo. Antiche e nuove questioni
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author focuses on the different criteria to establish jurisdiction provided by article 33 of the 1999 Montreal Convention in light of the most recent court decisions that followed the influence of the European Union on the Convention. This rule was authoritatively interpreted by the EU Court of Justice in a strictly procedural way which makes it not only a rule on jurisdiction, but also as a provision on internal venue. The aim of achieving a balance of interests at stake particularly attentive to the position of the air transport user is favorably shared in general terms. However, the proposed solution appears criticizable and not in line with the original spirit of the Convention. There are significant reasons, both literal and systematic, that lead to strengthen the exclusive jurisdictional option of article 33, already supported in the past and adopted by the decisions of the Italian Corte di Cassazione. Moreover, this last solution appears more coherent with the relationship of close continuity that can be found between the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and those of the Montreal Convention on matters of liability. The reading of the air transport contract in favor of the passenger has also affected the determination of the alternative criterion of the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract has been made. The Corte di Cassazione, in a recent decision, has effectively qualified this criterion as «intermediate». However, with a reconstruction which is also criticizable, the judges deemed that this criterion can be used in the very recurrent case of execution of the online contract and therefore identified with the place of domicile of the buyer, this being the only indicator having an adequate degree of determination and predictability.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".