• 한국항공운항학회지
• /
• 제15권1호
• /
• 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.

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제31권1호
• /
• pp.99-144
• /
• 2016

대상사안에서 한국인은 유럽항공사(에어프랑스)의 초과예약으로 인하여 파리에서 서울행 항공기의 탑승이 거절되었다. 대상사안에서는 국제사법 시행 이후 국제항공운송계약의 준거법, 항공권의 초과예약으로 인한 탑승거절에 대하여 항공사가 부담하는 민사책임 등이 문제되었다. 운송계약이나 소비자의 상거소지 외에서 용역이 제공되는 계약이라고 하더라도 소비자계약에 해당하는 경우에는 소비자의 상대방이 계약체결에 앞서 그 국가에서 광고에 의한 거래의 권유 등 직업 또는 영업활동을 행하거나 그 국가외의 지역에서 그 국가로 광고에 의한 거래의 권유 등 직업 또는 영업활동을 행하고, 소비자가 그 국가에서 계약체결에 필요한 행위를 한 경우나, 소비자의 상대방이 그 국가에서 소비자의 주문을 받은 경우 등에는, 당사자가 준거법을 선택하지 아니하였더라도 국제사법 제27조 제2항이 적용되어 소비자의 상거소지법이 준거법이 된다(대법원 2014. 8. 28. 선고 2013다8410 판결). 이에 따르면, 대상사안에서 문제가 된 국제항공여객운송계약도 소비자계약에 해당하므로, 준거법은 국제사법 제27조 제2항에 의하여 상거소지법인 대한민국 법이 된다. 이는 로마협약(80/934/EEC) 제5조 제4항에서 운송계약이나 소비자에 대한 용역이 소비자가 상거소를 가지는 국가 이외의 장소에서 배타적으로 제공되어야 하는 용역의 제공에 관한 계약에 대하여는 소비자의 상거소지법의 적용을 배제하는 것과 반대견해로, 외국항공사를 이용하여 국제여행을 다녀오는 내국인이 점차 증가하고 있는 상황에서 내국인 보호에 커다란 이정표가 될 수 있다. 다음으로 초과예약의 관행을 긍정한다 하더라도, 항공사는 초과예약으로 인하여 탑승이 거절된 승객에게 적절한 대체항공편을 제공하여야 하고, 만약 그러한 의무를 이행하지 아니한 경우에는 민법상 채무불이행 책임을 부담한다고 판시하여, 항공사의 민사책임을 명확히 하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다.