The defendants in the main proceedings and the French Government, none of whom had participated in the written procedure, made a reasoned application for a hearing. The parties to the main proceedings and other interested parties presented oral arguments at the hearing on 4 March 2015. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002 amending Regulation No 2027/97 (OJ 2002 L 140, p. 2). This amendment was made following the conclusion of the Montreal Convention. If you live in the United States, chances are you’ve seen a NEMA 14-50 outlet before. But what exactly is a NEMA 14-50 outlet, and what are they used for? Keep reading to find out. (The diagram below is by JGrimm licenced under CC BY-SA 4.0 . It was found on Wikimedia Commons.) What Is a NEMA 14-50 Outlet? Subtract the result in the previous step from the number written above it. (100 - 98 = 2) and write the answer at the bottom. Before you continue, note that in the problem 240 divided by 14, the numbers are defined as follows:

This question is relevant only if the Court, contrary to my view, considers that the Montreal Convention applies in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings.air service” means a flight or a series of flights carrying passengers, cargo and/or mail for remuneration and/or hire; Give it a try now with a similar division by 14. What is the Quotient and Remainder of 240 Divided by 14? Here we provide you with the result of the division with remainder, also known as Euclidean division, including the terms in a nutshell:

The present request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Korneuburg Regional Court, Austria) concerns the determination of the law applicable to a claim for damages brought by an individual, resident in Austria, against an aircraft operator and his civil liability insurer following an air accident in Spain. Are Article 29 of the [Montreal] Convention … and Article 18 of [the Rome II] Regulation … to be interpreted as precluding national provisions which provide for a direct action by the injured party referred to in Question 1 against the civil-liability insurer of the person responsible for the injury? I recall that Article 29 of the Montreal Convention lays down the principle of exclusivity of the rules on liability contained therein, providing that any action for liability under the convention can only be brought subject to the conditions and limits of liability set out in the convention. Regulation of the Council of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air (OJ 1997 L 285, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 May 2002 (OJ 2002 L 140, p. 2) (‘Regulation No 2027/97’). In view of the foregoing, I consider that Article 18 of the Rome II Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that an injured party may bring a direct action against the insurer of the liable party when the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation so provides, regardless of the provision made by the law that the parties have chosen as the law applicable to the insurance contract.

It should be recalled that Article 67 provides that the Brussels I Regulation is not to prejudice the application of provisions, contained in EU instruments or in harmonised national legislation, governing jurisdiction in specific matters. Article 67 thus makes express provision for the existence of specific rules in relation to the rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels I Regulation. the legal system of that State also provides for a direct action in its legislation on insurance contracts?’ As appears from the documents before the Court, the applicant submits in the application in the main proceedings that the Austrian courts have jurisdiction under Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 ( 7) and that Austrian law applies in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Rome II Regulation. She also maintains that she is entitled to bring a direct action against the insurer under Austrian law. The rules on jurisdiction form part of the overall approach taken by the Montreal Convention to eradicate conflicts of laws and jurisdiction and to establish a foreseeable set of rules on liability, protecting passengers and enabling air carriers to manage risk more effectively. From the perspective of the broad scheme of the Montreal Convention, these rules on jurisdiction appear alongside the substantive rules in Chapter III, concerning the liability of air carriers and the extent of compensation for damage. Second Council Directive of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1).

The aim of Regulation No 2027/97 is to make the liability of air carriers subject to a single set of rules, both for international and national carriage within the European Union. This objective militates in favour of a broad interpretation of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2027/97.must be determined exclusively on the basis of Article 17 of the [Montreal] Convention … and that national law is not applicable? D – The conditions under which a direct action may be brought by the injured party against the insurer (Question 4)

In those circumstances, the Landesgericht Korneuburg decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: This request is interesting for two reasons from the standpoint of EU law. First, it affords the Court the opportunity to define the boundaries of the scope of both the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ( 2) and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 ( 3) which implements that convention. Second, it allows the Court to determine the scope of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, ( 4) which concerns direct action against the insurer of the liable party.To my mind, that reference covers all of the provisions of Chapter III of the Montreal Convention relating to the liability of air carriers, including the provisions concerning the rules on jurisdiction set out in Article 33 thereof. Unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation, the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort/delict shall be the law of the country in which the damage occurs irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and irrespective of the country or countries in which the indirect consequences of that event occur.