• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.38-53
• /
• 2007

In a seminal judgment of November 2002 (Case C-476/98) relating to the compatibility with Community laws of the 'nationality clause' in the 1996 amending protocol to the 1955 U.S.-German Air Services Agreement, the European Court of Justice(ECJ) decided that the provision constituted a measure of an intrinsically discriminatory nature and was thus contrary to the principle of national treatment established under Art. 52 of the EC Treaty. The Court, rejecting bluntly the German government' submissions relying on public policy grounds(Art. 56, EC Treaty), seemed content to declare and rule that the protocol provision requiring a contracting state party to ensure substantial ownership and effective control by its nationals of its designated airlines had violated the requirement of national treatment reserved for other Community Members under the salient Treaty provision. The German counterclaims against the Commission, although tantalizing not only from the perusal of the judgment but from the perspective of international air law, were nonetheless invariably correct and to the point. For such a clause has been justified to defend the 'fundamental interests of society from a serious threat' that may result from granting operating licenses or necessary technical authorizations to an airline company of a third country. Indeed, the nationality clause has been inserted in most of the liberal bilaterals to allow the parties to enforce their own national laws and regulations governing aviation safety and security. Such a clause is not targeted as a device for discriminating against the nationals of any third State. It simply acts as the minimum legal safeguards against aviation risk empowering a party to take legal control of the designated airlines. Unfortunately, the German call for the review of such a foremost objective and rationale underlying the nationality clause landed on the deaf ears of the Court which appeared quite happy not to take stock of the potential implications and consequences in its absence and of the legality under international law of the 'national treatment' requirement of Community laws. Again, while US law limits foreign shareholders to 24.9% of its airlines, the European Community limits non-EC ownership to 49%, precluding any ownership and effective control by foreign nationals of EC airlines, let alone any foreign takeover and merger. Given this, it appears inconsistent and unreasonable for the EC to demand, $vis-{\grave{a}}-vis$ a non-EC third State, national treatment for all of its Member States. The ECJ's decision was also wrongly premised on the precedence of Community laws over international law, and in particular, international air law. It simply is another form of asserting and enforcing de facto extraterritorial application of Community laws to a non-EC third country. Again, the ruling runs counter to an established rule of international law that a treaty does not, as a matter of principle, create either obligations or rights for a third State. Aside from the legal problems, the 'national treatment' may not be economically justified either, in light of the free-rider problem and resulting externalities or inefficiency. On the strength of international law and economics, therefore, airlines of Community Members other than the designated German and U.S. air carriers are neither eligible for traffic rights, nor entitled to operate between or 'free-ride' on the U.S. and German points. All in all and in all fairness, the European Court's ruling was nothing short of an outright condemnation of established rules and principles of international law and international air law. Nor is the national treatment requirement justified by the economic logic of deregulation or liberalization of aviation markets. Nor has the requirement much to do with fair competition and increased efficiency.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.99-144
• /
• 2016

The summary of the case is as follows: a Korean passenger booked and purchased a business class ticket from Air France that was scheduled to depart from Paris and arrive in Seoul. When the passenger arrived at the check-in counter, he was told that all business class seats were occupied. It was because the flight was overbooked by Air France. The passenger cancelled the Air France flight and took another air carrier. After arriving in Korea, he brought suit against Air France for damages. The purpose of this article is to discuss the governing law when interpreting the contract of international air carriage in accordance with the Korean Private International Act (2001) and to analyze air carrier's civil liability for the bumped passenger in the overbooking case. If the parties have not chosen the applicable law the contract shall be governed by the law of the habitual residence of the consumer in the following situations: prior to the conclusion of the contract, the opposite party of the consumer conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement in that country or conducted solicitation of transactions and other occupational or business activities by an advertisement into that country from the areas outside that country and the consumer took all the steps necessary for the conclusion of the contract in that country or in case the opposite party of the consumer received an order of the consumer in that country [Article 27 (1), (2) of the Private International Act]. Since the contract of international carriage falls into the consumer contract, the Supreme Court viewed that the governing law of the contract in this case would be the law of the habitual residence of the consumer (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da8410 decided on Aug. 28, 2014). This interpretation differs from the article 5 (4) of Rome Convention(80/934/EEC) which declares that the consumer contract article shall not apply to neither a contract of carriage nor a contract for the supply of services where the services are to be supplied to the consumer exclusively in a country other than that in which he has his habitual residence. Even though overbooking can be considered as a common industry practice, an air carrier must burden civil liability in case of breach of contract for the involuntary bumped passenger(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na48391 decided on Jan. 29, 2015). In case of involuntary bumping, an air carrier must offer re-routing to passenger's final destination by an alternative flight. If an air carrier fails to effect performance in accordance with the tenor and purport of the obligation, the involuntary bumped passenger may claim damages(Article 390 of the Civil Code).