regarding the interplay between the Athens Convention and EU legislation. However, it might be presumed that eventually the Court will have an opportunity to
consider those instruments and interpret the Convention. It will be of special interest
to follow those developments bearing in mind the EU’s favourable disposition
towards passengers. A significant number of recent preliminary rulings handed
down in the field of air transportation raised harsh international criticisms and so
far provides the only real illustration so far of how an international transport
convention is applied and interpreted in the EU legal framework.
25 Thus, the cases
decided by Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reveal a number of
unresolved issues with regard to the co-existence and co-operation of legal frameworks at different levels.
It needs to be recalled that the Athens Convention 2002 was ratified by the EU in
December 2011. As a result, Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 On the Liability of Carriers of Passengers
by Sea in the Event of Accidents was adopted to implement the Athens Convention
2002 within the Union. This Regulation governs the liability regime based on the
Athens Convention 2002 and the IMO Reservation and Guidelines for the Implementation of the Athens Convention (IMO Guidelines).
26 At a closer look, it is clear
that the scope of application of the Regulation is broader than the Athens Convention
and includes a number of other issues. For example, in contrast to the Athens
Convention, the Regulation provides compensation for mobility equipment of the
disabled passengers. It also has a provision that provides immediate compensation in
the event of death in the amount of EUR 21,000 and contain obligation to inform the
passengers about their rights.
The Regulation applies to both international and national transport within the
EU. It also includes the IMO Guidelines adopted on 19 October 2006 by IMO, which
address some issues under the Convention and compensation for terrorism-related
damage. The Regulation incorporates and makes binding parts of the IMO Guidelines. There is also a possibility to amend a Regulation to incorporate any future
amendments that will be made to the international conventions and other
instruments.
According to Article 2, the Regulation applies to any international carriage, to
certain carriages within a single Member States, and that the Member States may
apply it to all sea-going domestic carriages. Article 3 explicitly lays down the rules
for liability and insurance and refers to relevant provisions of the Athens Convention
and the IMO Guidelines. Article 5 states that the carrier can enjoy his rights under the
25 See for example, Case C-12/11 Denise McDonagh v. Ryanair Ltd., [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:43,
Case C-139/11 Joan Cuadrench Moré v. KLM NV., [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:741, Case C-63/09
Axel Walz v. Clickair SA., [2010], ECLI:EU:C:2010:251, Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon
and Others v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v. Air France
SA., [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:716, Case C-344/04 The Queen on the application of: International
Air Transport Association and European Low Fares Airline Association v Department for Transport, [2006] ECLI:EU:C:2006:10.
26 IMO Ref. A1/P/5.01, Circular letter No. 2758, 20 November 2006.
70
O. Bokareva
consider those instruments and interpret the Convention. It will be of special interest
to follow those developments bearing in mind the EU’s favourable disposition
towards passengers. A significant number of recent preliminary rulings handed
down in the field of air transportation raised harsh international criticisms and so
far provides the only real illustration so far of how an international transport
convention is applied and interpreted in the EU legal framework.
25 Thus, the cases
decided by Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reveal a number of
unresolved issues with regard to the co-existence and co-operation of legal frameworks at different levels.
It needs to be recalled that the Athens Convention 2002 was ratified by the EU in
December 2011. As a result, Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 On the Liability of Carriers of Passengers
by Sea in the Event of Accidents was adopted to implement the Athens Convention
2002 within the Union. This Regulation governs the liability regime based on the
Athens Convention 2002 and the IMO Reservation and Guidelines for the Implementation of the Athens Convention (IMO Guidelines).
26 At a closer look, it is clear
that the scope of application of the Regulation is broader than the Athens Convention
and includes a number of other issues. For example, in contrast to the Athens
Convention, the Regulation provides compensation for mobility equipment of the
disabled passengers. It also has a provision that provides immediate compensation in
the event of death in the amount of EUR 21,000 and contain obligation to inform the
passengers about their rights.
The Regulation applies to both international and national transport within the
EU. It also includes the IMO Guidelines adopted on 19 October 2006 by IMO, which
address some issues under the Convention and compensation for terrorism-related
damage. The Regulation incorporates and makes binding parts of the IMO Guidelines. There is also a possibility to amend a Regulation to incorporate any future
amendments that will be made to the international conventions and other
instruments.
According to Article 2, the Regulation applies to any international carriage, to
certain carriages within a single Member States, and that the Member States may
apply it to all sea-going domestic carriages. Article 3 explicitly lays down the rules
for liability and insurance and refers to relevant provisions of the Athens Convention
and the IMO Guidelines. Article 5 states that the carrier can enjoy his rights under the
25 See for example, Case C-12/11 Denise McDonagh v. Ryanair Ltd., [2013] ECLI:EU:C:2013:43,
Case C-139/11 Joan Cuadrench Moré v. KLM NV., [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:741, Case C-63/09
Axel Walz v. Clickair SA., [2010], ECLI:EU:C:2010:251, Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon
and Others v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v. Air France
SA., [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:716, Case C-344/04 The Queen on the application of: International
Air Transport Association and European Low Fares Airline Association v Department for Transport, [2006] ECLI:EU:C:2006:10.
26 IMO Ref. A1/P/5.01, Circular letter No. 2758, 20 November 2006.
70
O. Bokareva