Conference on Private International Air Law, Volume II

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

CONFERENCE

on Private Internrrtionul Air Law

Volume I1

DOCUMENTS

April 1953

MONTREAL CANADA

This Publication i s issued in English, French and Spanish.

Published in Montreal, Canada, by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Correspondence concerning publications

should be addressed to the Secretary General of ICAO, International Aviation Building, 1080 University Street, Montreal, Canada.

Orders for ICAO publications should be sent, on payment:

In Canadian currency ($), to In Sterling or Irish currency (sld), to

Secretary General, IC AO, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, International Aviation Building, P.O. Box 569, 1080 University Street, London, S. E. 1, Montreal, Canada. England. (Cable address: ICAO MONTREAL) ; (Cable address:

WHOLECORN, SEDIST, LONDON );

In French currency (fr), to In Egyptian currency ( L.E. ), to

ICAO Representative, ICAO Representative, European and African Office, Middle East Office, 60bis, avenue d'Ihna, Wadie Saad Building, Paris (I&), France. Sharia Salah el Dine, (Cable address: ICAOREP PARIS) ; Zamalek, Cairo, Egypt.

(Cable address: ICAOREP CAIRO) ;

In Peruvian currency (soles), to In Australian currency (s/d), to

IC A 0 Representative, IC A0 Representative, South American Office, Far East and Pacific Office, Apartado 680, 10 Weybridge Street, Lima, Peru. Surrey Hills, E.lO, (Cable address: ICAOREP LIMA); Melbourne, Australia.

(Cable address: ICAOREP MELBOURNE).

I n I n d i a n currency ( R s . )

Oxford Book and S t a t i o n e r y Company, Scindia house N e w D e l h i , I n d i a .

T A B L E O F C O N T E l i T S

DOCUIBI?T NO I - Rules of Procedure of the Conference, O o O

DOCUMENT NO I1 - Note on the development of the d r a f t convention on damage caused by foreign a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the surface (prepared by the ICAO Legal Bureau). o @ O @ .2 (r O 9

(See pages 11 and 12 fo r the detailed Surm~ary of this document)

D O C U m T N~ I11 - Draft convention on damage caused by foreign a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the surface o o e O ., o 9 5

Chapter I - Principles of Liabi l i ty o a 0 o 97 Chapter P I - Extent of Liabi l i ty 3 O O o a D dl 99 Chapter I11 - Security fo r 0perator8s Liabi l i ty , o O 100 Chapter IV - Rules of Procedure and Limitation of Actions 102 Chapter V - Application of the Convention and G9n~ra l Provisions 104 Chapter V I - F h l Provisions o o o 106 Annex t o the Convention - Cert i f icate of Insurance, Guarantee

or Deposit o O O O O o o o O 108

DOCUMENT NO I V - Synthesfs of comments and proposals received from States and Internat ional Organizations i n respect of the Mexico City d r a f t convention on damage caused by foreign a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the surface and on the I C A O Councilas propomls i n respect of the economic aspects thereof, 109

Pfelf mfnary Note o o O O o o O O o o O 111 Chapter1 - P r i n c i p l e s o f Lfabi l i tyo a 113 Chapter 11 - Extent of Liabi l i ty O o 128 Chapter III - Security f o r Operatores Liabi l i ty , o 139 Chapter N - Rules of Procedure and Limitation of Actions 151 Chapter V - Application of the Convention and General Provisions 163 ChapterVf -Ffna lProvia ions a O o o 167 0 0

Proposed a r t i c le on reservations , 0 0 O , 172

DOCUNNT NO V - Comments by the ICAO Council on the d r a f t conventi on, 177

(see page 179 fo r the detailed Summ~ry of this document)

DOCUMWT No V I - Reports submitted t o the Confereace by Committees a 203

A,- Comdttee on Article 4 , o B O o O O a o 205 B, - Committee on A r t i c les 7 and U ( 2 ) O O O o o ., 207 C , - Committee on A r t i e l e 11(4) . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 D ,- Commfttee on Art ic le 15 0 0 0 0 o o 213 E ,- C o d t t e e on Arbitration o O O o o 217 Fo- Committee on Final Prwfsions . o O o O O o o a 239 G o - Commfttee on Inaurancso O o o 221

Table of Contents ( i f

D O C M T NO V I I - Draft prepered by the Drafting C o d t t e e f o r the Second reading , O O o o o o o o o 227

Chapter I - Principles of Liabi l i ty , ., O Cl 229 Chapter I1 - Extent of Liabi l i ty o o o ~ o 231 Chapter 111 - Security f o r Operatorts Liabi l i ty , O 232 Chapter IV - Rules of Procedure and Limitation of Actions 232 Chapter V - Application of the Convention and General Provisions 234

D C C M N T 1' V I I X - Draft p repred by the Drafting Committee for the Third reading o .2 O c, o .. O O o O 235

Chapter I - Principles of Liabi l i ty , 237 Chapter I1 - Extent of Liabi l i ty o o o o o 237 C h a p t e r I I I - S e c u r i t y f o r ~ r a t o r f i s L i a b i l i t y , . 237 Chapter IV - Rules of Procedure and Limitation of Actions 238 Chapter V - Applf cation of the Convention and General Provisi ons 239 Chapter VI - Final Provi sf ons o 0 0 239

DOCUMENT NO PX - Table of concordance of a r t i c l e s of the Rum Conven- t ion (1933) and Brussels Protocol (1938), d r a f t revisions thereof and Rome Convention (1952) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 241

D I ? C L J T I?' X = Convention on Damage caused by Foreign Aircraft ta Third Partfes on the Surface - Rome 1952 a7

Chapter1 - P r i n c i p l e s o f Lfabfli ty, 24.9 Chapter11 - E x t e n t o f Liabi l i ty 252 Chapter I11 - Security for Operatorus Liabi l i tyo . 255 Chapter IV - Rules of Procedure and Limitation of Actions 259 Chapter V - Application of the Convention and General Prwis iens 243 ChapterVI-FfnalProvisions 265

DOCUWNT NO X I - Final of the f i r s t international Conference on private a i r l a w held under the auspices of the International Civi l AviatfonOrganizatfon-Rome1952 * 27l

Annex t o the Final Act . o O o o O O O 281

- A C - Cer t i f i a t e of Insurance . 281 - B,- Cert i f ica te of financial responsibili ty t o be endorsed on or annexed t o the C e r t i f i c a b of Insurance . o o o 282 - C O - Cert i f icate of Guarantee ., 282 - DO- C e r t f f i c a t e ~ f D e p o s f t ~ a o ., 283

ALPHABETICAL INDEX o o o n o o o o o o 285 0 0

D O C U M E N T M o I

R U L E S O F P R O C E D U R E

of

T H E C O N F E R E N C E ( 1)

(1) The Conference adopted these Rules on 10 September (morning) . See Volo I, page 10.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

RULES OF PROCEDW OF THE CONF'E8ENCE

Rule & (Composition of the Conference)

(1 1 The Conference shall be composed of the Representatives of the States invfted by the Councfl of ICAO to attend the Conference,

(2) Representatives may be accompanied by alternates and advisers,

(3 International organizations invited by the Council of ICAO to attend the Conference may be represented by observers,

Rule 2 (Credentials and Credentials Committee )

(1) The credentials of Representatives of States, their alternates and advisers and of observers shall be deposited with the Secretariat,

( 2 ) A Credentials Committee shall be established at the beginning of the Conference, It shall consist of three members representing three States nominated by the President of the Conference,

(3 1 The Credentials Committee shall elect its own Chairman and shall examine the credentials of Delegates and report to the Conference without delay,

Rule 3 (EligLbflity for participation in meetings)

Any members of a Delegation shall be entitled, pending the presentation of a report by the Credentials Committee and Conference action thereon, to attend meetings and to participate in them, subject, however, to the limits set forth in these Ruleso The Conference may bar from any further part in its activities any member of a Delegation whose credentials it finds to be insufffcfen%,

Rule 4 (Off i cers )

(1) The Conference, as soon as practicable after its commencement, shall elect its President, Until such election, the President of the ICAO Council or, in his absence, a Vice-besfdent of the Council, shall act as President of the Conferenceo

(2 1 The Conference shall elect three Vice-Presidents and the Chairman of the Commissions referred to in Rule 5 0

Rule 5 (Commissions, Committees and Working Groups)

(1) The Conference shall establish such Commission open to all delegations or Committees of limited membership as it may consider to be necessary or desirable,

(2) A Commission or a Committee shall establish such Working Groups as it may consider to be necessary or desirableo Each working coup shall elect its own Chairman,

Document nQ I

Rule 6 (public and pr ivate meetings)

Meetings of t he Conferen .ce s h a l l be held i n public unless the Conference decides t h a t any of i t s meetings s h a l l be held i n private. Meetings of the Commissions, Committees and Working Groups s h a l l not be open t o t he public except by decision of the Commissions, Committees o r Working Croups concerned,

Pule 2 (Pa r t i c i pation of observers)

(1 1 Observers may par t ic ipa te without vote i n t he del iberat ions of the Conference, when i t s meetings a r e not held i n pr ivateo With respect t o pr ivate meetings, individual observers may be inv i ted by the Conference t o a t tend and t o be heard,

(2 1 Observers may at tend and be heard by the Commissions, Committees and Working Groups i f inv i ted by the body concerned,

( 1 ) A majority of the S t a t e s represented a t the Conference and whose Representatives have not no t i f i ed the Secretary General of t h e i r de- parture s h a l l cons t i tu te a quorum,

(2 The Conference s h a l l determine the quorum f o r the Commissions and Committees i f , i n any case, it i s considered necessary t h a t a quorum be established f o r such bodies,

Rule 2 (powers of the presiding Off icer)

The presiding Officer of the Conference, a C o d s s i o n , a Committee o r a Working Group a h a l l declare the opening and closing of each meeting, d i r e c t the discussion, ensure observance of these rules , accord the r i g h t t o speak, put questions and announce decisions, He s h a l l r u l e on points of order and subject t o these Rules, s h a l l have complete control of the proceedings of the body concerned and over the maintenance of its meetings.

Rule 1 0 (speakers )

(1) The presiding Officer s h a l l c a l l upon speakers i n t he order i n which they have expressed t h e i r des i re t o speak; he may c a l l a speaker t o order if h i s observations a r e not relevant t o the subject under discussiono

(2 Generally, no delegation should be cal led t o speak a second time on any question except f o r c l a r i f i ca t i on , u n t i l a l l other delegations des i r ing t o speak have had an opportunity t o do soo

(3 ) A t meetings of t he Conference, the Chairman of a Commission o r a Committee may be accorded precedence f o r the purpose of explaining the conclusions arr ived a t by the body concernedo I n C o d s s i o n o r Committee meetings, a s imi la r precedence may be given t o t he Chairman of a Working Groupo

Document no T ---.

Rule 11 (Points of Order)

Ijtlring .the d.lscu:mion on any matter, and notwithstanding the provisions af Rule PO, a Representative of a S t a t e m y a t any time r a i s e a point of order, and the point of order s h a l l be immediately decided by the presiding o f f i c e r c Any Representative of a S t a t e may appeal against t he ru l i ng of t he pmsiding o f f i c e r and any discussion on the point of order s h a l l be governed by the procedure s t a t ed i n Rule 14, The ru l i ng of the presiding officer shall stand unless over-ruled $y a majori ty of votes ca s t , A Rapresentative d' a S t a t e speaking on a point of order may speak only on th4.s point , and oiy not speak bn the substance of the matter under discussion before tho point was ra i sedo

R e 2 (Time l f m i t of speeches)

A presiding Officer may limit the time allowed t o each speaker, unless t h e body concerned decides otherwise,

Rule (Motions and Amendments ) - (1) A motion o r amendment s h a l l not be discussed u n t i l it has been seconded* Motions and amendments may be presented and seconded only by Representatives of Sta tes . However, observers may make a motion o r amendment provided t h a t such motion o r amendment must be seconded by t h e Representatives of two S t a t s s ,

Rule I4 ( Procedural Motions )

Subject t o the provisions of Rule 13(1) any Representative of a S t a t e may move a t any time the suspension o r adjournment of the meeting, t he adjournment of the debate on any question, t he deferment of discussion of an item, o r t he c losure of the debate on an item, After such a motion has been made and explained by i t s proposer, only one speaker s h a l l normally be allowed t o speak i n opposition t o it, and no fu r the r speeches s h a l l be made i n i ts support before a vote i s taken, Additional speeches on such motion may be allowed a t the d i sc re t ion of the presiding of f ice r , who s h a l l decide the p r i o r i t y of recognition,

Rule 15 (Order of Procedural ~ o t i o n s )

The following motions s h a l l have p r io r i t y over a l l o ther motions, and s h a l l be taken i n the following order:

(a) to suspend the meeting; (b ) t o adjourn t he meeting; ( c ) t o adjourn the debate on an Item; (d) t o defe r the debate on an item; ( e ) f o r closure of t h e debate on an item.

Document I& I

Rule 16 (Reconsideration of Proposals)

Reopening within the same body of a debate already completed by a vote on a given question s h a l l require a majori ty of two-thirds of votes cast . Permission t o speak on a notion t o reopen s h a l l normally be accorded only t o t he proposer and t o one speaker i n opposition, a f t e r which it s h a l l be immediately put t o vote, Additional speeches on such a motion may be allowed a t the d i sc re t ion of the presiding of f ice r , who s h a l l decide the p r io r i t y of recognition. Speeches on a motion t o reopen s h a l l be l imited i n content t o matters bearing d i r ec t l y on the j u s t i f i c a t i on f o r reopening.

Sule 17 iscu cuss ions i n Working Croups)

Working Groups s h a l l conduct t h e i r del iberat ions informally and Rules 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 s h a l l not apply t o them.

Rule 18 (Voting Rights)

(1) Each S t a t e duly represented a t the Conference s h a l l have one vote a t meetings of t he Conference*

(2) Each S t a t e represented i n a Commission, Committee or Working Group s h a l l have one vote and meetings of such bodies,

Rule 12 (voting of presiding Officer)

Subject t o t h e provisions of Rule 18, t h e presiding Officer of the Conference, Commission, Committee o r Working Group s h a l l have t he r i g h t t o vote on behalf of h i s S ta te ,

Rule 20 (Majority required)

Except a s otherwise provided i n these Rules, decisions s h a l l be by a majority of t he votes ca s t , An abstention s h a l l not be considered a s a vote.

Rule 21 (Method of voting)

Voting s h a l l normally be by voice, by show of hands, o r by standing. I n meetings of t he Conference there s h a l l be a r o l l c a l l i f requested by t h e Representatives of two States , The vote o r abstention of each S t a t e par t i c ipa t ing i n a r o l l c a l l s h a l l be recorded i n the minutes.

Rule 22 (Division of Motions)

On request of any Representative of a S t a t e and unless the Conference d e c i d ~ s otherwise, par t s of a motion s h a l l be voted on separately. The resu l t ing motion s h a l l then be put t o a f i n a l vote i n i t s en t i re ty ,

Document no. 1

Rule 3 (Voting on Amendments ) 1-

Any amendment t o a motion s h a l l be voted on before vote i s taken on t he motion, When two o r more amendments a r e moved t o a motion, t h e vote should be taken on them i n t h e i r order of remoteness from t h e o r i g i n a l motion, commancirrg with the most remoteo The presiding o f f i c e r s h e l l determine whether a proposed amendment i s so r e l a t ed t o t he motion as t o cons t i t u t e a proper amendment thereto , o r whether i t must be considered a s an a l t e r n a t i v e o r subs t i t u t e motion,

Rule 24 (vot ing on Al ternat ive o r Subs t i tu te Motions)

Al ternat ive o r s u b s t i t u t e motions, s h a l l , unless t h e meeting otherwise decides, be pu t t o vote i n t h e order i n which they a r e ~ r e s e n t e d , and a f t e r t he disposal of t he o r i g i n a l motion t o which they a r e a l t e r n a t i v e or i n subs t i tu t ion , The presiding Officer shall decide whether it i s necessary t o put such a l t e r n a t i v e o r s u b s t i t u t e motions t o vote i n tho l i g h t of Ltre vote on t h e o r ig ina l motions and any amendments the re to , Phis r u l i ng may be reversed by a majori ty of votes ca s t ,

Rule 25 (Tie vote)

I n t h e event of a t i e vote, a aecond vote on t h e motion concerned s h a l l be taken a t t h e next meeting, unless t h e Conference, Commission, Committee o r Working Group decides t h a t such second vote be taken during t he meeting a t whidh t h e t i e vote took place, Unless t he r e i s a majori ty i n favour of t h e motion on t h i s second vote, i t s h a l l be considered l o s t ,

Rule 26 (hnguages)

(1) Documents of t he Conference s h a l l be prepared and c i rcu la ted I n t he English, French and Spanish languageso

(2) The English, French and Spanish languages s h a l l be ueed i n the de l ibera t ions of t he Conference, Commissions, Committees and Working Groupso Speeches made i n any of t he th ree languages s h a l l be i n t e rp re t ed i n t o t he o ther two languages, except where such i n t e rp re t a t i on i s dispensed with by cormon consent.

Rule 27 (Records of ~ r o c e e d i n ~ s )

( 1 Minutes of t he meetings of the Conference s h a l l be prepared by t he Seo re t a r i a t and approved by t h e Conference.

(2) Proceedings of Coimission, Committees and Working Groups s h a l l be recorded i n such form a s t he body concerned may decide*

Rule 28 (~mondment of t h e Rules of Procedure) -- These ru l e s may be amended, o r any port ion of t he ru l e s may be

susponded, a t any time by a majori ty vote of t he Conference, except t h a t t h e requirement f o r a two t h i r d s majority under Rule 16 may be amended only by a two t h i r d s majori ty of t h e votes ca s t ,

D O C U M E N T NOIT

N O T E

on the

DEVEIOPMENT OF THE DRAFT CONVENTION ON

DAMAGE CBUSED BY FOREIGN AIRCRAFT TO THIRD PARTIES ON THE SURFACE

(prepared by the ICAO Legal ~ureau)

Document no 11

S U M M A R Y Pane

Introduction 0 ,3 D a O O a O a 0 O o o

CHAPTER I,- Principles of LlabfPfty 0 o 0 O O O D , a

A,- System of Liabi l i ty o O O c, O o o o o O

B,- Conditions and circwnstances giving r i s e t o compensation Co- Persons Liable I) O e o O 0 . o ‘a O

Do- Servants or Agen%s O O O ,, O a . . E,- Various Defences of the persona l i ab le . ,2

Appendix "A" to Chapter I - Summary of systems of l i a b i l i t y i n force i n various States with respect t o damage caused by a i r c r a f t t o th i rd part ies on the surface O o O o .

Appendix "Bn t o Chapter 1 - Tables of persons l i ab le with respect t o damage caused by a i r c ra f t t o third part ies on the surface . Table I - Alternative LiabiEity O O r, o O O

Table 2 - Joint and several l i a b i l i t y o O o O O

Appendix "C" t o Chapter I - Table of defences available t o the operator with respec% t o damage caused by a i r c r a f t t o th i rd part ies on the surface O o O o O o O a

CHAPTHC I1 O - Extent of Liabf l i t y c, o O O O O o o

A,- L i m i t s of Piabf l i t y 0 13 O e o O

Bo- L h i t s p e r p e r s o n O o O O O O

C,- Unlimited l i a b i l i t y o i' o O a . Do- Joint and several l i a b i l i t y c. o O ., Eo- Apportionment O c, O 0 a 0 O

Appendix "'8" t o Chapter II - Table of extent of l i a b i l i t y with respect t o damage caused by a i r c r a f t t o th i rd part ies on the surface

CHAPTER 111.- Security fo r operatorus l i a b i l i t y o D o

80- The securi t ies which may be requested by the State overflown by an a i r c r a f t registered i n another State ,3 o o O

Bo- Insuranoe as a security and i t s proof o e O . o

Co- Other guarantees 0 c? 0 0 0 D O

Do- Right of d i rec t action against the insurer o O c.

E,- Defences of the insurer or guarantor . .3 O O a

F o - Should Chapter I11 be maintained i n the Convention ? . o o

Appendix "AT1 t o Chapter I11 - Synthesis of practices of States concerning insurance and other security fo r damage caused by a i r c r a f t t o th i rd part ies on the surface o c2 .3

Appendix "Bfl t o Chapter I11 - Note on the r ight of df rec t recoup se against the insurer a s covered by national legis lat ions

CHAPTW IVo- Rules of procedure and ljlmita%iom of actions a O O

io- Competent jurisdfc%fon O D O O a m

B,- Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments o o O

C,- MfscelPaneous questions relat ing t o actions r, e

Document no I1 S=sy

Paae

Appendix nAn to Chapter N - Extracts from Report of the Sub- CommitteeonnJurisdictionsn . . o a - Single Forum Solution: The place where the damage occurred - Multiple Fora Solution: Joint United Kingdom-Italian proposal - Multiple Fora Solution: Joint Australian-Swedish proposal - International Tribunal: Joint Netherlands-Brazilian proposal Annex "r$" - New text covering the Single F o m Solution . e

Annex nB't - New text based on the United Kingdom proposal incorporating suggestions of Italian Delegation O e

Annex "C" - New text covering the Joint Australian-Swedish proposal . O O D . . e o o O el .

Annex #Dl' - Text submitted by the Netherlands Delegate .

ANNEXES TO THE NOTE

ANNEX I,- R6sum6 of provisions of national laws concerning liability for damage to third parties on the' surface .a O

Argentina 63 Belgium 63 Bolivia 63 Brazfl 64 Bulgaria 0 64. Canada . 0 &e CcyPon . -65 Chile . .65 Colombia 65 Costa Kica : 65 Czechoslovakia , 65 Denmark , 66 Domf ni can Republic 66

Zcuador 66

Finland France . Germany Guatemala a

Honduras . Hungary Iceland . Iraq - a . Ireland . Italy o

Lebanon . Mexico . New Zealand Norway Poland B

Roumania . ., 71 Thailand . 0 71 Spain 71 Sweden ., 72 Switzerland . 72 Union of South Africa . 72

United Kingdom 72 British Colonies, Protectorates, etc. . . 73

United States 74 Uruguay 75 U.SoS,R. . .'75 Venezuela 75 Yugoslavia 75

ANNEX 11,- Swnmary of the practices of States concerning security for damage caused by aircraft to third parties on the surface

Argentha a o

0

Belgium . ‘3

Brazil . . B- 0 0 0

Canada , O o

Czechoslovakia . Denmark o

Doninf can Republic ,?

xgypt 0 * 0

Finland France o O

Guatemala Iceland . Indf a e

Iraq . . Ireland . Israel . O

Italy . o

Mexico O

Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Norway

Pakistan . P

Philippf nes Portugal Spain O

Sweden Switzerland Union of South Africa .

United Kingdom United States Uruguay . O

Venezuela

16 The draf% conventfon submitted t o the Conference has been the object of a long and c w e M study, not only within the International Givfl Aviation Organfaation, - by the Legal Cod%$ee, the UP Transport C o d t t e e , the Councfb, %he AasembPy and t h e Seca~etariat , - but also by ~laary Govemrrmts and cer ta in interna%ionsLa organiaatfons which were consulted d x times, e i the r on specif ic questions o r on suctzeasive d ra f t s of the revised Conventionb

2 , A t $he Pfss t Session of the ECAQ Assembly ( b y 194%) cer tain Representatives pointed ou% tha t t h e i r G o v e ~ n t ~ had been adviaed not t o rati- 0 the 1933 Born% Convention 3n vfew of the changing conditions of a i r transport , and it was, therefore, psopsed tha t the revision of the Rome Convention and the Brussela RvtoeoP be studied by the Legd C o d t % e e o The Assenbag included the item of revision on the work programme of the Leg& Committeeo

30 A% the F i r s t Session of the Legal Godtntee ( ~ s u a r r e ~ s , September 1$47'), w h i s h warr en t i r e ly devoted t o the preparation of a d ra f t convention on the internat ional reeognf$fonz of r%ghts f n air~rafb, a Sub-Cod t t ee on nreviafon of the Rome Conventionn w a s establishedo This Sub4onnn%%teeV which w a s composed of the Representatives of f ive States and &so received the a~)s i s tance of Repre- sentatives of IATA and IUU, held three sessions, pr ior t o or duping the three subsequent sessions of %he Legal C o d t t e e % %n May L$&8 (6 meetfnga), in September 1948 (2 meeting@ 1 and in June 1949 (9 meetfnga 1

4 0 The Sub-Codtitee subm%$%ad re~ports t o %he Legal. C o d % % e e , whfch were considered by the C o d % t e e at its Seosnd (Hay-~une 1948) a d Fourth (June 1949) Sessf om, during 9 meetfngaaa During tha% per%& two questiomai res , one on the pshcip1ea t o be included in n revised text and the other on the lMts of l i a b i l i t y were e%rcx&ated t o Cbvementqe i n November-December 1948 and Ju ly 1949 mspec%ivelyo Additional documentatfon was a lso prepared by the Secretar%at,

5 o On 18 June 1$$9, %he Legal Committee eonsidered t h a t %he prebi- mfnary s tudies were s u f f i ~ f e n t $ y advanced t o permit the preparation of a t e x t of a d ra f t conarentfono The S u b 4 o d k t s e was df~pmlved and a Rapporteur was entrusted with the preparation of a text 0% a revieed Rsme Convention eLnd of a report on all the questions under discussisno

6, The~eaf%er, the Legal C o d t t e e and, in one instance, the Legal C o d s s f o n of the Assembly ( ~ o u r t h session) gave pfibfdes. at tent ion t o the work of revision, A t T a o d n a ( ~ i f t l n Sessfsn of the CoWt tee , January 1950) the t e x t of the Ftappm4ieu.r was discussed during the whole aess i on (21 meetings ) and a new draft w a s establ%shed and h n d i a t e 1 y c i r c d a t e d t o the Stateso A t Montreal ( ~ e g a l Commission of the Assembly, June %950, - 24 meeting@) the t ex t w a s revised and again circulated t o the States , A t Mexico City (seventh S e m i on of the C o d t t e e , January 195% 1 the present f b d d r a f t w a s ea tab l i shed, afte~ discussion and three readings during 35 mee%%mgro

?a The Legal Con;onfttee and the Legal C o d s s i o n of the Assembly had the benefit of the assistance of the Rapporteur and of a Draf%ing Commlttcae,

Docuxnent no I% Introduction

as well as the benefit of the studies made by three special s u b - c o d t t e e s and workfng groups, namely:

- one on n%nsurance and other Securityt1, which met i n Montreal i n June 1950, and i n Paris i n December 1950 (11 meetings);

- one on the "Definition of the Operatorn, which met in Taormina i n January 1950, and i n Montreal i n June 1950, (6 meetings ); and

- one on the question of nJuriedictionw, which met i n Taormina in January 1950, i n Mogtreal i n June 1950, and i n Mexico i n January 1951 (25 meetings)

8, When the Council decided, i n February 1951, t o c i rcu la te the present f ina l d ra f t f o r submission t o the Conference, it considered it appropr iate , as suggested by the Chairman of the Legal Committee i n h i s report t o the Council, t o make, f o r the benefit of t he Conference, a special study of the economfc aspects of the d ra f t , i n particular, of the limits of l i a b i l i t y and cer tain problems of insuranceo The study w a e ~ made by the Air Transport Conrmittee (~ctober-~ecember 195l), a f t e r c i rculat ion t o Staters of a questionnaire, during 11 meetings, and on 12 December 1951, the Council considered the report of the Air Transport Committee and approved the coments which appear as Documcnt no V i n t h i s volumeo

9 .3 In all, the present d ra f t was diecuslsed by the various bodies of the Organi zatf on during 160 meetings of an average of 3 hours,

10 a It should a l ro be noted tha t the States and internat ional orga- nbzatfona gave part icular a t tent ion t o the questionnairsa and t o the d ra f t s which they received, Replies to , and comments on, each document circulated were received from not l e s s than twenty States and three internat ional organizationso

11 e The Secretar iat a l so prepared, f o r the benefit of the variour bodies of the Organization, a number of rpecial studies related t o the problem involved; the most important of these a re as follows:

- studies on aviation insurance, including notes on compulsory insurance i n air transport; practices of States concerning insurance and guarantees required of air carr iers ; defences available t o insurers under national legis lat ions, regulations, jurisprudence and conventions, together with annexes on the national leg is la t ions and regulations containing detailed provisions on aviation insurance and a chronological bibliography (February 1948 ) ;

- Note on hraurance (~eptember 1948);

- a synthesis of the answers t o the questionnaire on the revision of the Rome Conventf on (May 1949) ;

- a synthesis of the answers t o the questionnaire on insurance (June 1949);

- a note on the defini t ion of operator (May 1949);

- a synthesis of answers t o the questionnaire on limits of l i a b i l i t y (November 1949) ;

- a synthesis of national laws concerning the l i a b i l i t y f o r damage t o th i rd par t ies on the surface (November 1949);

- s t a t i s t i c s on air accident8 i n re la t ion t o damage t o th i rd par t ies on the surface- (~ecember 19A9) ;

- a note on recent cases re la t ing t o damage t o th i rd par t ies on the surface (December 1949) ;

- a study af the national l2gis lct ions which provide f o r a direc% recourse against the insurer by persons suffering damage ((ictober 1'350) ;

- a study of the aspects of the problem of a e r i a l co l l i s i sns which r e l a t e t c the d ra f t convention (August 1950) ;

- economic aspects of the Mexico City d r a f t convention on darnage ca,nsed by foreign a i r c r a f t t o th i rd pa r t i e s on the surface - preliminary Secretar iat analysis (0ctober 19511 ;

- economic aspects of the Mexfco City d ra f t convention - analysis of ac%ual claims reported (October 1951) ;

- economic aspects of the Mexico City d r a f t convention - d r a f t coments on the l i a b i l i t y l$mits, prepared by the Secretar iat i n consultation with the Chaf man of the A i r Transpert Committee (November 19511

U, This note i s intended primarily t o give t o Delegates to the Conference who have not bees asseciated with every stage of the preparation of the present draf t , a general outline of the problems which have been considered by the various bodies of the Organization, and of the arguments presented and considered pr ior t o the establishment of the present f i n a l d ra f t ,

13 0 It i s hoped t h a t t h i s outline w i l l help t o avoid, a s far a s possible, the submission t o the Conference of problems already discussed within the International Civi l Aviation Organization, and the repe t i t ion of arguments which have been devalo~ed and disposed of during the previous consideration of the revision of the Rome Convention,

ue This paper w i l l not repeat the d e t a i l s of the discussions, which may be found i n the proceedings of the Legal C o d t t e e o r Legal Commission t o which references a re made when necessary, ( 1)

15. This paper i s divided according t o the chapters of the d ra f t convention, and i s completed by a r6sum6 of the provisions of national laws concerning l i a b i l i t y f o r damage caused by a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the surface, and by a summary of the practices of States concerning securi ty f o r such l i a b i l i t y c

(1 References a re made as followsg The Roman numerals nII, 111, I V , V, V I P a re used t o indicate the volumes of the proceedings of the Second, Third, Fourth, Fif th and Seventh Sessions of the &gal Committee respectively; the l e t t e r "An i s used t o indicate the volume of the proceedings of the Legal Commission of the Fourth Session of the Assembly; the Arabic numbers indicate the pages of these volumes, I n addition, the F i f th and Seventh Sessions of the Legal Committee a r e sometimes referred t o a s the "Taormina Sessionn and "Mexico City Session" respectivelyo

CHAPTER I

- Qic caoa o f semnnts and ~~,-cxltw;

3-70 T%s Rome Convention was baaed on uba~lut s liability, thus: "Any dmag@r cauaad by an aFrpc.raf.t in flfght to persona and p g o r t y on tho surface gttres r5ae t o couqcnr;a%i-OD by the sole fact t h a t P t 1s proved that 4ho dmngo e.d&fa and was cauaed by a n a i r c r a f t n (Art, 2(1))-

38, This fornula is still commonly accepted by most of me n a t i o n d 10gaI system, Oat of 33 n~C5o:mI lava on tddch iaformntlon $8 available, a ob?rly ~ e v e a l a t h a t 34 sro based on absolute 1iabflit;ylg one on f a u l t or prmumption of fault; one on t h e prosumption of f a u l t , and two on f au l t , It should be noted that i n the United S&teu, wl~eru t.he l i a b i l i v i s governed by S t a t e laws, certain States have adopted tho pr inc ip le of absolute 1iabili.b~; others, the presumption of f au l t ; and others, f a u l t ( a m Appcndix "Av to this chapter) ,

3-90 r(,m proposal:, for modificatjon of the system of abaolute l i a b i l i t y have been conaidered8

(a) A t the bcglnrdng of the work on the revis ion of the Rome Convention, it w s pointcd out t h a t , since t he s ignature of t h a t Convention in 1933, a great development of a i r t m n s p o r t had taken place, and, therefore, it would be unreasonsble t o r e t o in the pr inc ip le of absolute l i a b i l i t y i n the new Convcntiorn, It; 3 8 sa id t h a t the technical developments i n cerormut;ico and t h e pres.,nt stago of aoriaZ security should udt2@t(3 t o coioc e s t e n t t h ~ i a b i l i t y of the opcrator with rcs c .t t o third p a r t i e s

1 4 on the surfaco This proposul was not ncceptcd VjF, n it . w mtd that, such a pos i t ion would not e a s i l y be accepted by SGatm wbem a i r crc..ft a r e &ill considered t o bc more dnngemus than ot%er kinds of v;hicla:i; i~~lid, lrhile the in t ro3uct ion of the negligence prirlciple might well k~ appopr ic i te for dor;,e;;tlc l eg i s l a t i on , t h e adoptfon of such a pr inc ip le i r k intcrna.tiona1 l e g i s l a t i o n would probably not be general ly aic.>utt:d, In sevma l European States, there exists a trend to~cnrds u>dXk'yirb; -the ls,?isltil;ion I n o r d e r n o t t o bave the l i a b i l i t y on negligence, bu t t o tihit the absoLuw l i c k i l i t y , not only tli.th respect t o n i c i f %

(4Yb but also wlkh rLjspect t o r ~ i l c r s j a md o t t w f o m a of t runcporl

(3 ) Sbid,, --- pp, 56 and 129,

Ecrerthelcss, i n orc1~)r t o hme a fresh confirnntion of the views of the Sial;atc?s, n questionimlru m s c i rcu la ted t o S ta tes ii~ the ttutunln of 1948, i n hhich t h e S t a t m hero requested 4x1 inforu I C A O whather t h e i r Govern- ments wore i l l ftrvour of ~~ in in tn ln ing t ho principle of the Rome Convention according t o vhjch an operator, - wit21 the exceptions of Art ic le3 3 and 5 o f tho Convention, -

'ms 6bsPiP tely responsible f o r damage cauaed t o th i rd p a r t i e s on the surface

It appeared from the analys is of the rep l i es received t h a t only the United S t a t e s and Mexico were i n favour of LLle replacement; of the principle of absolute l i a b i l i t y with a r u l e based on negligence; and Greece adopted a a imilar posi t ion with a small modification, C~nada, while i n favour of l i a b i l i t y based on negligence, did not objecl; t o the principle of abso- l u t e l i a b i l i t y if t h i s should be the majori ty view of the States , A l l the o ther S t a t e s were i n favour of re ta ln ing the p r inc ip les of the Rome Convention, including the exceptions mentioned i r t i c l e s 3 and 5 (with 14 c e r t a i n reservat ions on the p a r t of some s t a t e s )

Therefore it ma decided i n June 1948, by a vote of 1 t o 3, t o r e t a i n the 4 system of absolute l i a b i l i t y of the Rome Convention 3).

(b) Another proposal was made during the T a o d n a Session i n January 1950, providing f o r a system having th ree degrees, namely: absolute l i a b i l i t y wLth c e r t a i n specif ied limits on the amount of l i a b i l i t y ; a threefold increase i n the amount of l i a b i l i t y where negligence i s ohown and unlimited l i a b i l i t y where i n t e n t to cause damage i s shown

That system, accepted as a compromise a t t h e Taomina ~ e a a i o n ( ~ ) , vaa completely eliminated during the preparation of the p e e n t d r a f t i n

$67 Mexico Ci ty and the previous syetom wsls rees tabl ished a

CONDITIONS bNIl CIRCU-hSTAtEES G I V I N G RISE TO CO~~N3ATION - 20, The Rome Convention provided (Arto 2(1)) t h a t "damage caused by a i r c r a f t f a f l i g h t t o persons o r property on the surface gives a r i g h t t o compensation by the mere fact; -that it i s es tabl ished that the damage e d s t s and t h a t i t was caused by t h e a i r c m f t w 0 Tnis provision included Ar t i c le 2(2)~ "damage caused by any body whatever f a l l i n g from the a i r c r a f t , even i n the case of j e t t i s o n of b a l l a s t o r j e t t i s o n made i n c a m of necoseftyl', and a l s o "damage caused by any peraon on board the a i r c r a f t , except i n the case of an act i n t e n t i o n a l l y committed by a person who i s not a member of the crew and not connsctod with the operation, without the operator o r h i s agents having been able t o prevent itno

21. The d e f i n i t i o n of damage(?) was very c a r e f i l l y s tudied and from the beginning of the study the expression 'Pdamge caused t o persons o r property on the surfacen considered t o be anbiguoua, None of the answers reedvted from States, except one (89" favoured t h e maintenance of the wording of the Rome Convention, and a r posal made

P99 i n June 1950 t o r e i n s t ~ t e the t e x t of t h e Rome Convention was re jected .

(1) 111, pp, 225, 229 and 243-2&

4 V, ppn 316-3180 (5) Ibido, PO M5o (6) mr, P O 470 (7) &ft3renees t o this subject w i l l be found ins X I , pp. 59-60 and 133; 111, pp. 243-2&,

IV, pp, 48-54, 24l-2.423 V, ppo 11-21, 172, 253, 2599 29G299, 329, 347 and 3561 A, pp, 60-67, 164-174, 186, 207, 224-225, 268, 273 and 303; V I I , pp. 139-U5, 222- 223, 269-270 and 34Y0

( 8 ) IV9 PO 2 U . o

(9) P O 630

Document n" I1 Ch. I

22 , Gthsr proposalc: were succesafvely considered, nmelys

(a) to define the d m g e as "damage ar i s ing from contact between an aircraf o r anything f a l l i n g therefrom and any person o r object on e surface

( 3 the word ncontactl' was, however, considered as too narrow

(b) t o enumerate the possible causes of damage(3); successive y atudied were the cases of damage caused by "fire and explosion n th)9 (5 the "air-stream of the propeller", and by tlextraordinaq noisen , i n addition t o "damage caused by contactN; the case of damage caused by f i r e and explosion was retained, but the cnses of damage caused by the air-stream of the propeller and by extraordinary noise e not included; howe the system of enumeration, a t first accepted r8f9 was l a t e r rejected vt

( 0 ) t o estnblf ah a general pr inci l e of causation together with an enumeration of exeeptiona; AP i l e l ( 1 of the present d r a f t i s based on t h a t proposal, td which was accepted

P 23 0 The exceptions mentioned i n the second sentence of Article l ( 1 ) of the present d r a f t a re a s follows:

(a) No r igh t t o compensation w i l l e x i s t "if the damage i s due t o noiae o r the normal f l i g h t of a i r c r a f t through the a i r spacen; these words cover the case of possible l i a b i l i t y due t o the f a c t tha t under cer tain legal systems the mere passage of i c r a f t above the property of a person might give r i s e t o l i a b i l i t j r ~ 9 f o i t Mexico City i t w a s specified that "normal f l i g h t n would be a f l i g h t i n conformity w i t h existing a i r t r a f f i c regulatf ona (Art. 27) (10).

(b) No r ight t o compensation w i l l e x i s t " i f the damage cannot be considered as a d i rec t consequence of the incident giving r i s e t o the damageno

240 The conditio o the Rome Convention tha t the damage should be cauaed by ? f an a i r c r a f t "in f l i g h t w has also been maintained i n the new draft , but the def in i t ion of the expression flightI1, which appears a s Article 2(3) i n the Rome Convention was amended a f t e r considerable discussiono The following succesrive proposals were conaidered:

(a) %o include i n the application of the Convention any damage caused by an a i r c r a f t i n movement even when such movement i s not connected with fl ight(12);

(b) t o r e s t r i c t the application of the Convention to the per i d rom the beginning of the take-off t o the end of the landing run?13fl

(c) t o have " f l igh tn begin from the moment when power i s applied f o r the purpose of actua take-off and continue u n t i l the moment when thg t landing nm ends 14);

-

(1) 11, PO 1330

(2) IV, po 2We (3) Vp pp. 11-21, 172, 253 and 259.

(4 ) Iv, P o 530

(5) Ibido, po 530 (6) V, ppo 12-21, 172, 253 and 347

(7) A, ppo 164-167. (8) Ibfd,, pp. 164-167,

(9) Ibida, P O 1670

(10) For the origin of Art icle 27 of the present d ~ e f t , see V I I , ppo I&!, 145, 222- 223, 238, 258 and 269,

(11) References t o t h i s subject w i l l be found i n IS, ppo 59-60 and 133j 111, p02& n, pp, 48-54 and 241-2428 V, ppo 13, 14, 17, 28.23, 59, 173, 176, 253, 259, 308, 329, 335, 347 and 356; A, ppo 60-67, 176, 177, 186, 207, 225, 269, 273 and 303; VII, ppo 145, 270' and 34T0

(12) IV, pp. 51, 54 and 20. (13) Ibid., ppo 51, 54 and 2W0 (U-) V, p. 176.

(6)

(d) ta imcleade fa the draf t the de f in i t o of " f l ight timem a s found i n t l P Annex 6 $o the Chicage Conwmtion

250 The epplfcabiP3.tg sf tlea defini t ion QP "in f l f @ t a te the ease of Belicapters h-QB a l s s Been conar&de~ed, but, f n general, i t war accepted thnt the prerrsnL,d P h i t i o n dfd mt r e q u i n any addition to take care of the ease of heli- f eopbrs\3 . 26, A sentence w a s added to cover the ease of glidepa aad baflwnrs (4)

27 o There are alm other conditions which do not appear i n Chaptsp I of the pema% draft, and which r e s t r i c t the ri&t to e o ~ p e a u t i o s a ~

2% The present d r a f t has ~eaintafied, w l t h sliat sZifferenees i n d@tafl , the following conditions which existed i n the Rome Conventi~ng

(a) the d m g e should be eeused on the t e r r i to ry of a Contracting State by an a i r c ra f t mgilrtered i n another Contractfng Stat Asto 20(1) of the h e Convention and A r t . 22(1) of the present draf t)f5f ; hoverer, the defini t ions of w t e r r i t o r y b h i e h appear in the Rome Convention and i n the present d r a f t are different; the present draft has a lso extended the notion of t e r r i t o q by inser t ing i n paragraph (2) of Article 22 a provision t o the effec t that ship o r a i r e r a f t on the high seas sha l l b egarded as part of the t a r r i t c r y of the State i n which it i s rsgiareredwf6f;

(b) the Convention does not apply t o military, custom8 o r police a i r c r a f t (Art021 of the Rome Convention and A r t . 25 of the present draf t) , it being specified i n the present draf a t the Convention does not apply "to damage causedn by such 8 ~ e m P t

(c) the Convention does not apply t o damage caused on the aurf'aee, compensation f o r whioh is governed by the contract of carriage o r a contract of erpPoyment concluded between the fajured person and the person upon whoa I f a b i l i t y falls under the tema of the Came on (Art, 22 of the hma ?if Convention and A r t , 24 of the present draf t)

29 o Two other eondftiona or exceptions which did not c d s t i n the Rome Convention were added to the d r a f t during the, diaeassions:

(a) the Convention does not apply to damage caused to an aire t i n f l i g h t N, or t o persoar or goods on board such a i r c r a f t ( ~ r t , 23) 9

(5) Rcfereaces to this subject w i l l be found ins V, ppo 208, 258, 263, 329, 334 asd 352; A, ppo 136-139, 191, 212, 26& 280 and 310; V I I , ppo 186==1tU9 293 and 3540

( 6 ) References t o t h i s subject wi l l be found in: A, pp, 136-139, 1919 264, 280 and 310; MI, ppo 187, 293 and 355,

(7) References t o t h i s subject w f l l be found ins V, pp. 209, 258, 263, 327, 335 and 353; A, pp. 141, 143, 1919 213, 265, 280 and 311; VII, pp, 188-189, 294 and 3550

(8) References t o .thi s subject wIP1 be found in: V, ppo 55- 58, 209, 254, 2609 312- 313, 335 and 353; A. pp. U+O-L$l, 191, 213, 265, 280 and 311; VIZ, ppo 1814, 294 md 3550

( 9 ) Rbferences t o t h i s subject w i l l be found ins V, ppo 55-58, 209, 299, 313, 3 and 3553 AD ppo 1 3 9 = U 9 191, 213, 265, 280 and 311; VIX, pp0 18'7, 294 and 3550

(b) there is no r ight t o compensation if the damage i s %he d i rec t consequence sf' armed confl ict o r c i v i l disturbance, or i f a person l i ab le under the provisions of the Convention has been e rived of the use of the a i r c r a f t 717 by an ac t of public authority (Arto 5)

It should a lso '$s mentioned tha t there are cer tain defences f o r the person who would otherwise be liable, under the provdsions of t h i s Convention and these defences w i l l be def%ned l a t e r fa t h i s Chapter,

(a) Classea of persons l i a b l e under t e t ~ C o n v e n t i o n and the present draft ,

300 The dmf% convention has mintafned as persons l i a b l e three classes of persons who were also considered as l i a b l e pursuant t o the Rome Convention:

(9) the operator who was considered as normally l i ab le (Art, 4 ( l ) of the Rome, Convention) ;

(if) the registered owner of the a i r c r a f t i f the name of the operator is not inscribed on the aeronautical regiater o r on some other o f f i c i a l docwent (Art, 4(3));

( f i i ) the unlawful user (Arto 5 ) ; in some cases there i s joint and several l i a b i l i t y of the unlawful user and the operator,

The provisions of 22 national legis lat ions on l i a b i l i t y f o r damage caused by a i m r a f t t o th i rd part ies on the surface impose al ternat ive l i a b i l i t y variously on the owner, the operator, the M r e r f o r more than 14 days, the unlawful user, o r other persons (see Table P i n Appendix *Bu to t h i s chapter), I n the case of joint and several l i a b i l i t y i n the 12 national legis lat ions where t h i s exists, there i s variously jo in t and several l i a b i l i t y of the operator and the owner; the operator and the hirer; the owner and the h i r e q the person i n whose name the a i r c r a f t i s registered and the person making use of o r operating the a i r c r a f t and the FPrson on board who has cormitted the damage (see Table 2 i n Appendix "B" to t h i s chapter).

The corresponding provisions of the d ra f t convention modify the Rome Convention i n may respects, bn particular, w i t h respect t o the definition of the operatoro

31 o A s mentioned i n the Introduction t o th i s piper, special working groups, as we$l as the Legal C o d t t e e i t s e l f i n plenary meetings, considered t h i s defini t ion exhaustively,

32 o The Rome Convention concept of an o e a t o r as a person wh ses the air- P4Y c r a f t on h i s own account was a t f i r s t retainedr3f, but l a t e r dropped

(1) References to t h i s subject w i l l be found ins IV, ppo 29-31, XW-139, 291-292; V, pp, 31, 90-91, 184-186, 253, 259, 3%-30'7, 330 and 347; A? P P ~ 75-76? 161, 178, 187, 242-233, 270, 271; and 304; V I I , ppo 165, 168, 230, 275-276 and 3480

(2) bferences t o th i s subject wA.11 be found ins IV, po 133; V, ppo 24-31, 177-179, 253, 259, 300, 329, 347, 356 359; A, PPO 4-69 1Q-17, 67-68, 147-1519 207, 227-230, 269, 273, 299-300, 303, and 313-331; V I I , ppo 10-26, 148, 224, 266, 271-273, 347 and 380,

43 o 1̂;Piae element of the Rome Convention definition that the opepator &all have the r ight of disposal of tihe a i r c r a f t was a t first replaced by the idea tha t ef ther personally o r through h i s s e n a n t s he should be i n n E ~ w f i ~ l possessionn of the a i r e r a i t and navigate it i a f l igh to Bu$ t h i s definition was not considered satis- factory and it was not t h o u a t necessary t o base such a def ia l t ion upon - i n addition to the r ight of use of the a i r c r a f t - the concept cf "&tention 18gftimen of %e a i rcraf t , a concept aapecially familiar t o French and t a t i n American s y s k s of law. Thus, tps idea of nlavN1 possessionn as an element of the defini t icn was dmpped(1

340 'Phe present defini t ion (Art, 2(2) (a) of the preaent draf t) contains two main elements:

(a) the operator i s the person making use of the a i r c r a f t a t the time tihe d m q e was caused;

(b) he , ;? rola the navigation of the airmiif t

4 proviso indicates tha t "if control n t the nnv:i g s t i on of the a i r c r a f t was r e t a i n & , by the person from whom the r ight o imke use of the a i r c r a f t was derived, wbotksr d i rec t ly OP indirect lyp that ,::rson sha l l be considered the opemtofl (2) ,

350 it was deemed necessary t o add alvc 8 defini t ion of the expression "makes use of the d r c ~ a f t ~ (Art, 2(2)(b) of the present draft), particularly i n order to cover the ca e of a i r l i n e s 9 e r v a n t s o r agents who use an a i r c r a f t an b s h o ~ of 2 prin;ipclf3),

36 0 It has been proposed tha t the person made l i a b l e under the convention as operator should a lwap be the registered owner, or, i n any cou t which maintain8 such ar register, the n g i ~ t e m d user. This proposal ve* rejsctedr5fl:

37. There are certain d i f f e r a n c e ~ between the brne Convention and the present dra f t wi th re6pect t o the registered owner; i n particular, i n the d r a f t (Arto 2(3)) the owrner must be registered, while i n the Rome Convention (Art, 4(3)) the element of regis t ra t ion i s omitted. Also, t h i l e the Rome Convention s t a t e s merely tha t the owner can adduce uproof t o the contra@, the present d r a f t specif ies the circumstmces under which pmof i r t o be adduced, thus: %ileas i n the proceed- fngs f o r the determination of h i s l i a b i l i t y he proveas tha t some other person i s the operator and procures the joinder of such other person i n the proceedings, if the joinder is legal ly possible under the law of the court having juPisdictionuo

380 During the discussion on t h i s question of proof, m a q proposals were made and rejected, f ,e0

- to base proof the contrary on the contents of the national regis te r of t9 the a i r c r a f t 1;

- to delete the words "join i n the

(1) V, ppo 356 and 359.

(2) A, ppo 1117-151, 303 and 313-331,

(3) W d o 4 ) References to th ia subject w i l l be found i n s V, pp, 24-31, 179-3.82, 253, 259,

300.306, 329 and 347; A, ppo 4-6, lB.lSp 151-152, 186-207, 230-231, 269, 293, 3009 303 and 313-331; VIIP ppo 12, 14-19, 22-23, f 53-159, 225, 273 and 347@

(5) A, ppo 4-6, 230-231 a d 3000

- t o exclude e words "ff the law of the court having jurisdiction permit." (3;

- t o make the owner l iab le , but no s o p e m b l ~ , f o r -ge! r s su l t i ry from h i r f a i lu re t o procure tJre j o i d e r t 27;

(3) a& sum o a s r minor euggestioas

90 The provision of the p ~ e r e n t draf t ( ~ r t ~ ~ ( 2 ) ) has its origin i n the Wosae Conveatiems (Art, 5) but certain dffferanms ex i s t between the two textus

- while i n the Rome Convention the use must be wllthout t h e consent %f. the operatorn, i n the p ~ e s e n t d ra f t the use must be without the consent *of the perm. en t i t l ed t o the navigational control of the aircraf tm()) ;

- while in abe Rone Convention there is, under cer tain circu8lstarnces9 jo in t and several l i a b i l f t y of the operator and the unlawful user, i n the present draft , joint and several l iabi l i tg- i s applied to the person

t o the navigational control of the a i r c r a f t and the unlawful

- the prereat draft gives the person ent i t led to the navigational control a dafenee in the case of unlawf 1 use, i f he shows tha t it was impsssible to pnvent the unlawful. ule(7y; this defence i s not found i n the Rome Conlrenkiono

4-00 The present d r a f t provides f o r l i a b i l i t y not only f o r the &es above- mentioned classes of persons, but a lso fo r the joint and several l i a b i l i t y ofg

( a the person who was the operator a t the time the damage waa caused and who had not the exclusive r ight t o use the a i r c r a f t f o r a period of at Peaat 30 days, dating from the time when such r igh t commelaced,and the person from whom tha t f ight was derived (Art* 3);

(b) the s e m a t s o r agents of the operator, and the operator (Arto 4(1)).

4.L The case of the joint and several l i a b i l i t y of the person who, being the operator a t the time the d e was cauaed, had not the exclusive r ight to the use

3 7 , q d ] o f the person from whom the r ight derive8 a s of the afrcrafC for 30 days introduced without any opposition 9 and the only discussions were as to the

with the addition of the word nexclusfvan (117. tfVt" of the period, whi ch was reduced from an o r i i n a l 6 monthse period t o 30 days ,

Ibf do -.

V I I , P O 1590

References t o t h i s subject w i l l be found in: 111, po 243; IV, ppo 25-32, 132- l44, 157-163g 173-175, 192, 1959 196g 2009 202, 203, 206, 208, 210, 212, 21bp 218, 220, 222, 237 and 2891293; Vo ppo 51-54, 254, 260, 311-312, 329, 330 and 348; A, pp, 100, 156-160, 188, 208, 236-237, 270-271, 274-276, 305-3Q6 and 315; V I I , pp, 24, 31, 149-151, 179-180, 227, 2'79, 283-284 and 348.

Ibf do . . - - - . . --

v o Po 530 References t o thf s subject w i l l be found in: A, ppo 152, 177, 18'7, 2699 3%

304 and 313-331; V I I , ppo 162, 225-226, 273-274 and 3480 A, Po 1520 VII, P O 162, Ibido . * . -

Docwent rin II Cha I

42, I n Article 4 ( l ) of the present d r a f t the provision on the l i a b i l i t y of the s e n a n t o r agent(l), which did not e x i s t i n the Rome Convention, was introduced a s a r e s u l t of a close study of the def ini t ion of woperatorn and of the various circumstances which arose on consideration of 'that defini t iono It seemed US~~W. , from the point of view of' the victim, t o include i n the Convention a provision ubreby he would be protected against the servant o r agent who used the a i r c r a f t outside the scope of h i s a a t the same t h e this proviaion would afford protection t o the operator

43 0 As will be mentioned i n Section D of' t h i s Chapter, reference i s made i n many provisions of the Convention t o servants o r agents; and a t cer tain stagea of the discussion$,it was proposed t o delete f r o m the Convention a l l such provisions, including Article 4(1) (the uestion of unlawful use being however reserved), but ? 1 such proposals were re j e c b d 3

It was agreed tha t a servant o r agent who, not being an unlawf'ul user, used an a i r c r a f t while acting on the occasion of hie employment, but outside the scope of hia authority, should be l i a b l e as operator; t h a t i n such cases h i s l i a b i l i t y would be limited, i n accordance with the provisions of the Convention, and tha t he and the operator should be jo in t ly and severally A proposal that, i n au h caaes, the l i a b i l i t y of the servant o r agent should be u n l b i t e d was

F5, not adopted

(c) Limitation of caaes of l i a b i l i t y and r igh t of recourae of the wrson l iab le .

45 0 The present d r a f t provides (A& 9) tha t neither the operator, the owner, any person l i a b l e under Art ic le 3, nor t h e i r respective servants o r agents, sha l l be l i a b l e f o r damage on the surface mused by an a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t o r any person o r thing f a l l i n g therefrom otherwise than a s expressly provided i n the Convention, exeept i n the c a s e d a ch a person who i s g u i l t ~ r of an ac t o r omiasion P done with in t en t t o cause damap(6 . No such pmris ion ex i s t s i n the Rome Convention. A propoaal to delete the paragraph, as well as various proposals to mod- it were rejectsd(7) ,

46 0 The Rome Convention (Arto 7) provides tha t the provisions of the first s i x a r t i c l e s a r e without prejudice t o the question whether OP not the operator of the a i r c r a f t may have a r i g h t of recourse against the author of the damage, The present d ra f t ( k t o 10) broadens th ia concept on a l l counts providing t h a t nothing i n the convention sha l l prejudice the question whether a person l i a b l e f o r damage i n accordance w i t h the convention has a r igh t of recourse against any other pepson ( 8 )

47 0 References t o servants o r agents, which appear in the Rome Convention

(Art, f.e) only w i t h respect t o a damage caused by gross negligence o r wilful misconduct ( do1 ) of the operator o r h ia servants o r agents, hare been made i n many a r t i c l e s of the new draft:

References to t h i s subject w i l l be found inr A, ppo 155-156, 1% no9 2749 304-305 and 314; VII, pp, 150, l"18-1, 226, 278-279 and 3@0

A, ppo 155 and 314. V I I , PO 1500

mido, ppo 150P151o

Ibido, po 15x0 References t o thfr subject w i l l be found in: A, ppo 67, 154, 189, 226, 2@,

274 and 304; VII, ppo 162-164, 231, 274-275 and 3490 V I I , pp, 162-165 and 274-275*

References to t h i s subject w i l l be found in: V, pp, 3536, 191-192, 254, 259, 309, 330 and 348; A, p p 9 4 189, 208, 2379 271 md 3033 VII, 179, 280 and 3490

(a) i n Article 2(2) (b) aid deals w 2 t h the question of the eemant of ?$st only f o r the purpose of qualifying the defini t ion of woperatorn ;

(b) i n Article 6(2) which uses the expression usemaat o r agentn f o r the pc~~pose of clarifl-i e expmssion "person who suffers the damagen used i n Art icle

(0) i n A ~ t i c l e 12(1) whfch gives the operator a defence under cer tain circmstances i f he proreas tha t an s e t o r om s ion of h i s servant o r

t3P agent was done withaut h i s expreas authority -

G o With respeet t o the expression ' ' s e ~ m t o r agentm i n English, the same d i f f i e u l v ar i ses ar i n past i n finding an exact t ranslat ion in to French Q the MA D ~ ~ D O I ~ C (41,

49 o The Rome Convention contains only two exceptions to the principle of absolute l i a b i l i t y of the operatom

(a) The l i a b i l i t y can be diminished o r s e t aside only i f the damage has been caused o r contributed t o by the negligence of t h e injured party (Arto 3),

(b) Any person who, without having the a i r c r a f t a t h i s disposal, has made uae thereof without the consent of the opepator i s l i a b l e f o r an). damage caused, and where the operatop has not taken a l l proper s teps t o prevent the unlawful use of hi3 z i r c ~ c f t he and the said perron am joint ly and severally l iab le , the l i z b i l i t y of each being subject to the conditions and l imitations of t h i s Convention (Arte 51,

50 o Out of 4l, States on which informtion i~ a t hand, 33 make the defence of "faul t of the victimw available t o the operator, Other defences avdlable , but t o a much smaller degree are: f a u l t of +,I-drd party, $orce majeure, voluntary aeceptanee of risk, the injury o r damage .:3s sustained within an a i r f ie ld , inevitable accident, case of evident necccs2ty (applied t o objects thrown f r o r a i r c ra f t ) and the taking of a l l possible aszsures t o avoid the accident (See Appendix "GIt t o thf s Chapter),

510 From the beginning of the di.pcpssigns i n the Legal Committee these defences were considered t o be r e t a ind(51 , and when the answers were received to the questionnaire circulated i n the au.eu!m of 1948, th i s opinion was confirmed by the answe received from those States wX~ch favored a system of absolute ft 1 l i a b i l i t y . 520 During the preparation of the text, some modifications were made t o the concept of the Rome Conventions

( i ) with respect to the first there was added to the &fence of nnegligencen of the victim, the defence of Itother wrongful ac tn of

(1) References to t h i s subject w i l l be found ins A, ppo 4-6, 10, 12-16, 147-151, 186, 227-231, 269, 273, 303 and 313-331; V I I , ppo 148-153, 224-225, 272-273 and 34'7,

(2) References to t h i s subject w i l l be found in; A, pp, 161, 188, 233-234, 270, 274, 304 and 313-3315 V I I , ppo 170, 230, 277 and 348,

(3) References to t h i s subject w i l l be found in: V, ppo62-70, 94-115, 196, 254, 260, 318-319, 331 and 349; A, ppo 182, 188, 248-249, 276 and 305-306; V I I , ppo 43, 46-48, 50-64, 179, 232, 283 and 350,

4 A p P O 1560

(5) 11, P O 230,

(6) IV, P O 236, (7) References t o t h i s subject w i l l be found in: 11, pp, 57 and 130; 111, po 243;

Iv, ppo 25-35 173-175, 236-237; V 9 ppo 54-55, 188, 254, 260, 312, 330 a d 348; A, pp0 76-85, 161, 187-188, 208, 233-234, 270, 274, and 3U; V I I , ppo 120, 2300 276277 and 348@

the victim('); both defences, the l a t t e r dth some changes, were carr ied E o m ~ r d to the Mexico City d r a f t and they were made mai lable not only t o the operator but t o any person l i a b l e mder the provisions of the Convention ( k t o 6(1) ) 3

(ii) vith r e r p c t t o the second defence(2), lhe concept of the Rome Convention provision was broadened by providing %at the person ent i t led t o the mv&gatfonml control of the a i r c r a f t must prove e i ther tha t he has taken proper mea es t o prevent unlawful ure ar t ha t it was imwssible

tR(the u d e r l i ~ e a material being added) ( ~ e x i c o City > 0

53 o hdng the discussisn on inauranee, it was, noted tha t the Bmasels Protocol pcsmdtted the insurer tg i ~ w k e as a defence the f ac t that the e was the d i r e c t conse usnos of intarartitmad armed confl ic t o r c i v i l disorderWfBrusse1. ProtoeoE, Art, 1 ? l ) ( c ] ) , The States replying t o the questionnaire circulated i n the autuahn of' 194.8 fa o red the rete&bon of t h i s defence f o r the insurer and it was

75P decided to r e t a in the defence, A t %he aame time, it was also decided t o give the operater a defence where he was depdred of control a f the a i r c r a f t by a c t (8 public authorit ies, o r as a consequence af armed conf l ic t sr c i v i l disturbance

This defence given t o %he s p e r a t s ~ was somewhat narrower than the defence given t o the insurers under the Brurrels Protocol, since the l a t t e r defence excludes l i a b i l i t y i n respect of damage which i s the d i r ec t consequenw af international amed conf l ic t o r c i v f l dierorder, while the former defence l i m i t s the exception t o cases where the operatar hag been deprived of control of the a i r c ra f t ,

It was l a t e r decided tcb broaden the defence of the operator so tha t he would not be liable::

(1) i f he was deprived of the use of the a i r e r a f t by a c t of public authority, o r also

( 2 ) i f the damage w s the d i r ec t consequence of amed conf l ic t o r c i v i l (78 d f ~ t u r b ~ m c e ,

It was a lso decided tha t this defence should be available not only b the operator but a l so t o m ~ . person l i a b under the provisions of the Conventioa (~ r ta , 5 and 6 of the Mexico City draft)

540 The present d ra f t (br t , 8) also provides f o r an extension t o cer tain other persons of a l l defences which are available to the operator under k provisions

197 of the Convention, Such a provfsfon is not found fn the Rome Convention a

(2) References t o t h i s subject w i l l be found in: 11, ppa57 and 63; 1x1, po 2438 FJ, pp, 25-32, 132-1L&, 157-163, 173-175, 236237 289-*3; V, PPO 51-54, 78-71, 94-122, 196, 254, 255, 260, 261, 311, 314-316, 318, 330, 331, 348 and 349; A, pp, 100, 156-1609 179, 189, 2M, 209, 236-237, 270, 31, 274-27S9 276, 305, 306 and 313-3313 V I I , pp, 24, 31, 149-150, 1784.80, 226, 227, 283-284, 348 and 350,

(4 ) Rsferenees t o t h i s subject w i l l be found ins II, ppo 59 and 132; 11x9 PP, 24.4- 245; Iv, PPO 29-31, 46-48, 138-139, 180-181, 193, 227, 2 3 9 - a , 291 and 292; V, pp, 31, 90-91, 150-153, 184-186, 221, 250, 2539 2569 2629 306-3079 32d9 330, 333, 347 and 351; A, ppo 75-76, 129-131, 178, 1Wp 1909 2079 211, 216, 232-233, 253-255, 270, 274, 277, 304 end 308; VI19 ppo 112, 165-1669 2309 27% 276 and 348,

(5) IV, ppo 46-48 and 2 4 0 0 (6) Tbido, po 1390 (7) A, ppo 76 and 304, (8) VII, pp, 112, 165-1669 170, 230, 275-277 and 348, (9) &&do, ppo 231 and 349.

550 During the discussion two other defames of the peraorr l i ab le were a3-8.3 proposed but were not accepted for incorporation i n the draft8

(a) the damage resulted f r o m e wrongful a c t of a th i rd party, done wifA (8 in tent t o cause damage g

(a) - Damage resulting from the wrongful a c t of a t h f x p.rty,

560 It i s recalled tha t the Rome Convention provided (Arto 2(2)(b)) that the Convention sha l l apply to "damage caused by any person on board an a i r c r a f t except i n the case of an ac t intentionally committed by a person who is not a member of the crew, not connected w i t h the operations, without the operator o r his agents having been able to prevent itm,

57 0 In Juae 1949 it wa8 decided t o re ta in this prinoiple(3), but a t Taolminn it was decided to re jec t a proposal to broaden t h i s defence so tha t the operator would not be l i ab le in case of damage cawed an ac t collllaitted by person who 5.8 not a member of the crew, whether o r not sn ard the ai rcraf t , wj.Bh~ut the operator o r his agent being able t o preven ($; the same proposal was made i n Montreal in June 1950 and was also rej f6f:&5f: and it waa decided hot to mention t h i s defence i n the present draft

58 6 The proposal t o i n de the defence of force madeure i n the Convention F3Y was rejected on two occasions

(1) b ie renea r t o t h i s subject w i l l be found in: n, PO 32; V, PPo 44-619 182- - -

184, 311, 330 and 3471 A, ppo 68-75;, 2079 231-2321 VII9 F P e 166-1679 2752760

(2) References t o t h i s subject w i l l be found in: IV, ppo l.4, 22-25, 204, 231, 232-2331 V, ppo 46, 51-52, 66, 1843 A, PO 215 VII, PO 163-168 2760

(3) mp PO 32,

(4) v9 ppo 44-610 (5) A, ppo 6%75o

(6) V I I , ppo 166-168 and 3810

(7) IB, p, 25 and V I I , PO 16G0

APPENDIX "An TO CHAPTER 1

( ~ a s e d on the d s d of national aviation leg is la t ions s e t out i n Annex I t o t h i s Note)

Absolute l i a b i l i t y

Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Ceylon, Chile, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakiao Denmark, D d n i e a n Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gemany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, I t a ly , Lebanon, Mexico, Mew Zealand, Norway, Rumania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Union of South tllfrica, United Kingdom, United Sta tes [some Statee) , Uruguay, UoSoSeRo and Yugoslmi a,

Fault or presum~tion of f a u l t

Argentina.,

Presum~tf on of f a u l t

Poland, United S ta t e s (some States) ,

Fad. t

Canada, United Sta tes (sme s t a t e s ) , Venezuela,

No indication of system

Colombia,

Sta t e s

Argentina I Belgium Ceylon Costa Rica Dominican Rep. Finland France Ge m a ny Guatemala Honduras Hungary

Iceland

I r aq Ireland I t a l y New Zealand Norway Sued en Suit zerland Thai land Union of %,Ao United Kingdon

APPENDIX "BW TO CHAPTER I

T A B L E S

OF PERSONS LXABLE M D H REW13CT TO DAMAGg CAUSED BY AXFGRAFT TO TEfIRD PARTI= OW

THE SURFACE

( ~ a s e d on the d s m 6 of national aviat ion l eg i s l a t i ons s e t out i n Annex I t o t h i s Note)

TABLE 1 - ALTBNATIVE LIABILITY '

owner

Persons l i a b l e

h i r e r f o r more than u days

unlawful user other persons

person gu i l t y of an ac t causing the damage

unlawful holder

en t i ty of c i v i l aviation

e n t i t y of c i v i l aviation en t i t y of c i v i l aviation pi lot ; manager of compaq

holdi ng the a i r c r a f t person responsible fo r

the operation of the a i r c r a f t

holder

* I n t h i s Table the symbol *Xu means tha t , f o r the persons indicated, there i s separate o r a l te rna t ive l i a b i l i t y ( a s opposed t o ' j o i n t and s m e r a l l i a b i l i t y ) i n respective S t a t e s opposite which the "Xu appears,

Denmark

France Lebanon b l a n d

Spain United S t a t e s

( 9 s t a t e s ) Uruguay Yugoslavia

Document no I T Cho 1.- App.B.

Persons l i a b l e

o ther persons l i a b l e

0

0

a i r c r a f t commander; author of damago

the pi10 t; the holder person who uses a i r c r a f '

on behalf gf propietor 0

0

person w h ~ has committee f a u l t

person d i r e c t l y l i a b l e

l

manager of the a i r t r anspor t company

a n this Table the symbol l8X* means tha t , f o r the persona indicated, there i s j o in t and severa l l i a b i l i t y i n the respect ive S t a t e s o p p s i t e which the "Xn appaars, The parsons indicated i n the l a s t column are j o i n t l y and sdvera l ly l i a b l e with thoso indicated i n the precedf ng columnse

(1)1f no possessor. (21111 case of hire. (3 I ~ n t e r e d i n aeronaut ical reg is te r .

( 4 ) ~ u b s i d i a r i l y l i ab l e . ( 5 ) ~ o r a short time.

Document no I1 Cho So- Appo C

- -

S t a t e s

Argentina Belgium Bol iv ia Brazil Sanada Ceylor, Chile !3zechoslovaMa Denmark Ecuador Fl nl and France Germany Guatemala H u n g r y Iceland I r e q I r e l a n d T t a l y Lebanon Mexico New Zealand Norway Poland Rumania Spain Sued en S u i t zerland Thai 1 and Union of So, Afr. United Kingdom United S t a t e s (carbdn States cmly:

UoSoSeRe Y u g o s l ~ v i a

( ~ a s e d an r&urnb nf n a t i o n a l aviation l e g i s l a t i o n s s e t out i n Annex I t o this ~ o t e )

P

Dof encas

Notes

: l ) ~ h e defence q p f e s i f t h e r e i s an element of i n t e n - t i o n o r negligence on p e r t of v ic t im,

:2)The defence ~pllf~ t o l a n d h g and take-off only.

(3)The defence applSes i f inc idon t occurs on en aerodrome.

[,!+)There i s no defen- c e i n case of ob- j e c t s f a l l i n g f'ron on a i r c r a f t .

(5)Here the defence i s t h a t t h e r e has been f a u l t o f agents of t h e aerodrome,

f f n t h i s Table the q m b o l I1X" means t h a t t h e defel-ce i n 3 ; c a t e d i s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e opera to r i n the r e s p e c t i v e S t a t e s opposi t 3 which che l l X b p p r . r a ,

Note - No information on d o f encus i n t h e fo l l .oving countr ies : Bulgor ie , Colombia, -.- .- Costa-Rics, Dominicon Republic, fiondurm, Uruguay, Vcne;,caia.

(18)

f

59, Five questions should be considered with respect t o t h i s Chapters

.4

- Units of l i a b i l i t y ; - limits pep person; - unlimited l i a b i l i t y ; - joint erd several l ia 'bilf ty; - apportionment,

A, - LIMITS OF LIAF3ILITY (1)

60, The Rome Convention established Zfnita of the l i a b i l i t y of the operator based on 250 francs per kflagrrunme of weight of the a i r c r a f t , However, the maximum l i a b i l i t y could not be less than 6009000 francs OP

more than 2,000,000 francs ( A r t , , a ) , the French gold franc consisting of 65-9/2 ndllfgrams of gold of mfllesimal fineness 900 (kt, 19), In establishfag such linfis of l i a b i l i t y , S-batea wished t o balance the legitimate in te res t s and desires of a i r c r a f t operators engaged i n inter- m t i o n a l air mvigat ion against those of the general pablic who might be the third party v ie t * h on the surface i n accidents involving foreign aircraf t ,

610 I f the national laws are noasidered, it dl1 be noted tha t , in respect of damage causad by aircraf"c,o thkrd par t ies on the surface, most of the States have wilimitad IEabf l i t y and, a t the same time, absolute Uabbli%y, Limited l i ab i l i ty . *axists only i n the l eg i s l a t ion of the 5 States par t ies t o the 3933 ROIYL~ Convention and i n the folloning States: Germany, Honduras, I ta ly , Mexico mla Vmgudy.; but a31 o f these l a s t mentioned S%a,tes have Ymlxded praryfng limits i n the i r leg is la t ion , and most of them r e l a t e the Units t o the weight sf the aIrcrsf. t (see Appendfx "'A1 t o t h i s Chapter),

62* A s a consequence of the retent ion of the system of absolute l i a b i l i t y , the systam of a U t a t i o n of l i a b i l i t y was also retained, i n principle (2 ) ,

63 The acceptabil8ty of a system of absolute l i a b i l i t y and limited I f a b i l i t y was confirmed by the answers received from States t o the Question- naire circulated in tho autumn of 9948(3),

(1)~eferencos t o t h l s subject w i l l be found in1 11, pp, 56-57 and 129-130; 111, ppo 246-247; Iv, PPo 32-36, 162-164, P69-P68, 185-187, 194, 196, 199, 2019 202, 2049 205, 208, 2@, 211, 2&, 215, 297, 219, 2,2P, 223, 228-229, 234, 237-238 and 367-368;

V, pp, 94-98, 909, 114-122, 156, 192-194, 195, 250, 255, 261, 284, 285, 288, 289, 290, 292, 294, 295, 328, 321, 325, 3% 3489 349, 351, 355 and 357;

A , PPo xix, 21, 26-46, 206-209, 215-217, 225, 238-2Q, 243-2459 269, 275 and 3051 . . V I I , pp, 26, 31, 33, 36, 43, 128-137, 179, 232, 280-282, 349, 379 3% ( 2 ) ~ ~ , pp. 56-57 an<. 130;

Iv, pp, 32-36 arid 237-2338, ( ~ ) I v , pp. 2362%

Document nQ I1 Ch* 11

640 However, figures of l i m i t s were not proposed o r defined before the Taormina Session of the Legal Committee when the f igures were adopted on the basis of a t r i p l e systkm of l i a b i l i t y ( l j . A t the Plexico City Session t h i s t r i p l e system having boen abandoned(a), increased f igures were inserted i n the draft(31,

65 However, as there were wide divergencies of views on these figures, the Council of ICAO was Srrvfted t o consider the economic aspects of the problen of lmbs of l i n b i l i t y ( 4 ) o

66, The Cow~cil based its comments (See Document no V in tnfa Volume, Paras, 8 nr.d 91, on the two Pollswing factors:

(a) the limits should not be s e t so high as t o cause the cost of th i rd party insurance t o become an excessive burden on internat%onal civil. aviation;

(b) the limits should be set high enough to @aver compensation t,o t h i rd par t ies i n all but ext~ernely rare eatast~ophfc aeefdents,

67, On the f i r s t point, aa i s apparent from the general eomPusions drawn from ma'tsr$aj. provided by States a d cig.t;hers ( ~ p p e n d h 1 ta Documen no W, Paraso 1 and 4 ) f o r use i n the formulation of t h e Council. comnentls, a i re raf% iinsurauce premiums fo r th i rd par ty inswame f o r limits suck as a re normal ly covered a t present ard u n d e ~ present cond3tions, might be es%imated in genera2 t o be of the order of $9 or $2 per aircraft , per year pen" $9,000 of X i n ~ L t , and tnc cost of th i rd party aircraft f nsuence, under present condit ions, represents i n general betweon 9% and 10% of the toea1 cos t of" insur ing afrcruaf%j and, in the case of commercial airlines, the cost of a19 f o m of a9re~af" t Snswance (fncludfng h u l l fnsiranca) appears to be gonera91y between 1% and 5% of tne t o t a l qmra t i rg costs.., FOP such o erators , t h e ~ e f o m , the cost of t h h d p a ~ t y irsrlrnnco would be l e s s than f /Y 2 of 11 Ckf t h a f ~ operating cos lts and go rrarally considerably belc~w this f f glw,

68, !laving considered such a6ditiomP i~nfo~matfo~z, the CouncfS was i n the presence UP two .trends of cipfrxion - one fo r imrcsasing the fbdts of the Mexico City dra.x'%, and the other fo r retaining the Ilm3:ts of tha t draf-b, with the e'limination of a cer ta in discontlnulty fo r Pow-waight a i r c ra f t , There- fore, two aPLP;erna%,Sva proposaPs are submitted t o the consideration of the Conforema (see Doccmlen$ no V i n -this Woleune, Para, 26).

69e The ion^ Convention prcoldes (&ha 8 ( 3 ) ) tha.t %he compensation paynb2.e for dur.,tpe causd t o persons shod.ci riot exceed 200,000 francs i n respect of each pea"x~. i q u r e d ,

70, Although the insert ion of a similar provision i n the revised d r a f t was discussed at, the Tvorminsl Sass io~, (l), it was not u n t i l the Mexico Cfty Session tha t such a provision was fncluded(2) ( ~ r t . l l ( 2 ) of the Mexico City draft,), The Rome figure of 200,000 francs was raised t o 300,000 francs,

The m i n argument for a mb-11imit was tha t the Pack of such a provision would increase insurance premlllms(3) and a lso would permit extravagant awards being made by juries or tribunals i n cer ta in countriss(4) i n view of the high llmfts of l f ab i l i ty for so- a i r c r a f t , The main argment against having a sub-limit was tha t , i n States placing a higher value on human l i f e , a limit would prejudice innocent th i rd par t ies and would give an unfair advantage t o the operator(5).

The Counc%l considered tha t it was not i n possession of any inforlgatfon on t h i s podnt not already available t o the Legal CoHlmittwre and therefore decided not t o give advices to States as t o these l imi ts (6) ,

71, The Rome Convention ( ~ r t , 911) provides tha t the operator may not avail himself of the provisions of the Convention limiting his liability,

(a) i f it i s proved tha t the damage resu l t s from the gross negligence ( faute lourde ) o r wilful misconduct ( &l ) of the operator o r h i s servants or agents, except where the operator prows tha t the damage result^ from negligence i n the pilotage, handling o r navigation of the a i rcraf t , or, where h i s servants or agents w e concerned, tha t he hats taken a l l proper s teps t o prevent the damage; or

(b) i f he has not furnished one of the securi t ies prescribed by t h i s Convention o r i f the s ~ c u r f t f e s furnished are not valid o r do not cover the l i a b i l i t y of the operator f o r the damage caused under the esndftfons and wi th in the lfmitatfoms of the Convention,

72, A s the system of compulsory security was not retained i n the present draf t , no provf sfon similar to tha t of subparagraph (b) above was included i n the draf%(7),

73, However, the principle of unlimited l i a b i l i t y was retained n the present d ra f t and it appears i n Article 12; but the new tex t ( A r t . 12(l)f8) d i f f e r s widely from tha t of subparagraph (a) of Article l 4 of the Roae Con- ventions

(I)v, pp, 124-132, ( ~ ) v I I , pp, 129-136, ( 3 h , po 126; VII, p, 134, ( ~ ) v I I , p* 132+ (5)~, pa 125, ( 6 ) ~ e e Document no V i n t h i s Volume, Parao 27u ( 7 ) ~ , pp. 74-75, 145-W, 255 and 261. (8)~eferences t o t h i s subject w i l l be found in:

v, pp, 62-70, 94, 97, 105-115, 196, 254, 260-2613 319, 331 and 349; A, PPO 154-155, 187, 209, 248-249, 269, 276, 304 and 313-3315 V I I , PPo 249 309 31, 39, 399 40, 42, 43, 4-69 47, 4$t 4-99 50, 52-64,

179, 232, 283 and 350,

Docwent no I1 Ch, I1

(a) Due t o the same di f f icu l ty encountered many times i n the t ranslat ion of the two French expressions fau%e lourde and 'd&. , them expressions were replaced by the following:

"by a deliberate ac t or omfssiono,, done with in tent t o cause damageotl(l)

(b) The defence tha t the damage resulted from negligence i n t e pilotage, b ) handling or navigation of the a i r c r a f t was also deleted

(c ) The defence of the operator against unlimited l i a b i l i t y , i n the case where servants o r agents are concerned, tha t he took a l l necessary steps t o prevent damage, has been modified i n the present d r a f t and what the operator needs t o do now t o escape l i a b i l i t y is t o prove tha t the ac t or omission of the servants or agents concerned w a s done without h i s express authorify(3).

( 2 ) The new d r a f t establishes as an additional defence against unlimited l i a b i l i t y tha t the ac t or omission was done with the object of avofdf ng greater damage (4).

740 Another case of m l i n i t e d 1fab.il i ty which did not e x i s t i n the Rome Gonvention appears In Article 12(2) of 'the present draf t , namely, i f a person wrongfully takes and makes use of an a i r c r a f t without the consent of the person ent i t led t o use it, h i s l i a b i l i t y sha l l be unlimited(5).

Other proposals were discussed with respect t o unlimited l i a b i l i t y of an unlawful user, but they were f ina l ly rejected, namely:

( a ) the case of the use of the a i r c r a f t by a servant o r agent outside the scope of h i s authorfty(6);

(b) the use, by a person entf t led t o use the a i r c ra f t , contrary t o the purpose fo r which h i s r ight t o use the a i r c r a f t was conferred(7),

Do- JOINT AND S h W L T;TBIL-fTY(8)

75 , Articles 5 and 6 of the Rome Convention p~ov ide f o r two cases of joint and several l iabflf tgn

(a ) i n case a person who, without having the r igh t t o dispose of an aircraf;t,mkes use of it without the consent of the operator, the operatoy may not be l i ab le fo r tho damage caused except i f he has not taken the paper measures t o avoid the unlawful use of h i s a f r - craf%, but i n tha t case he sha l l be joint ly l i ab le with the unlawful user (~rt, 5);

( P ) ~ , pjj, 62-70 and 905-115, (2)1bid0, pp, 3.15 and .3E8,

1 64a (5)References t o this subject w i l l be found ins

m, P ~ o . 25, 132-U, 157-163 and 289-293; Vy pps 70-71, 94-915, 196, 255, 261, 319, 331, 34.9 and 358; A, pp, 91, 958-160, 189, 209, 217, 271, 276, 306 and 307;

VII, pp, 150-151, 179-180, 283-284 aold 350, (&)VII, pp. 950-151, b i d pp, 179-180, (*)see Appendh B able 2) t o Chapter I f o r a treatment of jo in t and several l i a b i l i t y

i n national aviation fegBs1atfo.m~ wX%h respect t o damage caused by a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the swface,

(b) i n the case of damgc ca~1:;cd on i,hc aurfaco by two or more col-liding a i r c r a f t , the opcr :~tors o;' such oircl-2nf-t; 321all be joint ly and smerally 1iah:Le t o t h s irijured party (kt, 6 ) ,

76, I n tho present draft , provialon i s Lmdc f o r f o w cases of joint and several l i a b i l i t y i n Art ic les 3 , 4 and 'Y6 The f i r s t two cases ( ( a ) and (b) below) we not dea l t with i n the Rone Convention, while the th i rd and f o ~ m t h cases ( ( c ) and (a) below) are based on the Row Convention but with soma differences, The cases m e a s fqllowsx

(a) Article 3 concerns the case where an operator, a t the time the d m g e was caused had not the exclusfva r i g h t to use the a i r c r a f t f o r a por-iod of a t l eus t 30 days, dating from the t h e whm such r igh t commenced; i n tha t case, the person from whom t h a t r igh t was derived s h a l l be l i a b l e io in t ly and sevaraUy with the operator(l) .

(b) Article 4(1) provides tha t a servant or agent of an operator who makes use of an afrcsat".t of h i s prfnc%pab while perfoPrrcfng functions for which ha was employed but outsfde the scope of h i s author~ity, shal l be Joint ly and severally l i a b l e with the operator. (2),

(c ) Art ic le 4(2) p~ov ldes tha t , i f a person makes use of an a i r c r a f t a s opera to^ without the consent of tho person en t i t l ed t o i t s navigational control and :Zf the Sather c r t~~not prove t h a t he has taken proper measures t o prevent such use or t h a t it was impossible f o r h i m t o

do he s h a l l be l i a b l e jointly and severally with the unlawful

user

(d) Article 7 provides tha t , when damage f o r which a r i g h t of compensa- t i o n exists under the Convention has been caused by two o r more a i r c r a f t , the operators of the a i r c r a f t concerned s h a l l be l i a b l e joint ly and severally; the present d r a f t deletes t he reference t o co l l i s ion and also, i n defining the oxtent of l i a b i l i t y , provides a more f lex ib le fornp~.a(4) ,

(1 )~e fe rences t o t h i s subject w i l l be Sound in: A, pp, 152, 177, 167, 269, 303-304 and 313-331; V I I , PPo 162, 225-226, 273-274 and 345,

(2)~eferencas t o t h i s subject w i l l be foutd in: A, pp. 1.55-15b9 188, 270, 274, 304-305 and 3911; VII, ppQ 150, 178-179, 226, 278-279 and 348,

(3)~efarences t o t h i s sub jec t wA11 be found in: ILI, p,2P3; pp, 25-32, 132-W, 159-163, 173-1759 192, 1959 196,

200, 202, 203, 206, 208, 2.10, 212, 296, 218, 220, 222, 23"1nd 289- 293; V, pp, 52-54, 254, 260, 311-3.22, 329, 330 a d 348;

A, pp, 1W, 156-160, 188, 208, 236-23'7, 279-271, 274-2763 305-306 and 315; VII, pp, 24, 31, 149-151, 179-180, 227, 279, 283-284 and 348.

(4)~eferenoes t o t h i s subject w i l l be fourid in: V, pp, 59-60, 188-290, 254, 260, 313, 330 and 3483 A, pp, 85-90, 96-99, 161,178, 188, 208, 234-236, 290, 274 an6 3016; VII, pp, 176-178, 230-231, 277-278 and 348; see V I I , pp, 232, 255-256

and 260 f o r the development of Article 13(2) of the present d ra f t which i s closely related t o Art ic le 7 0

77, Tho Roiiie Cornention provides (Arts, 8(3) and 9) tha t one-third of the m o ~ i n t of tl.6 ~irurimum l i a b i l ~ t y i s t o be appr~opriated t o compensatfon fo r damage causod t o p r o p e ~ t y and t hc other two~~.t;hirds f o r compensation f o r d a m p caused t o persons, and tha t , En addition, if several persons have suffered damage i n the a m e occurrence end i f the t o t a l skun payable by way o f compensation exceeds the l imi ts established i n the Convention, the compensation due t o each of such persons i s t o be reduced proportionately so that the t o t a l does nat exceed the Ifm.its,

78, The Mexico City dra f t ( A r t , l.4) contains a substant ial ly d i f fe rent formula fo r apportionmen'b,

79, Th.e present d r a f t provides f o r a reduction i n the case of c l a i m which are exclusively i n respect of loss of life o r personal injury o r exclusively i n respect of damage t o property, while the Rome Convention provides f o r a reduction only f n the case where several persons have suffered damage awl @om not make it c lear i f c h i n s i n respect of damage t o property would have a proportforrate reduction. Another important difference is t h a t the Rome Convontios provides f o r an apportionment on the baafs of one-..&hird of the amount to property and the other twwthirds t o persons, while the Nexfco C ~ t y dra f t subs t i tu tes f o r th.is ra ther r i g i d formula a much more f 1exib.k procedure f o r nppor t i orn~erxb,

8 00 The Conmittee ro,jeo+,ed a proposal t o adopt the Rome formula(2). I n addition, it regeebed on two occasions a proposal t o ae le te the provision on apportfoment and to leave t o the various national legislations the task of detem~fm ng the order in w Ech +,he reparati on for danage eausrJU t o persons 'i atxi p r o p r t y should be mat?a(j .

A , ppo 95 163-0,184, 189, 249-250, 2'76 arid 306-3W; VSI, pp, .LW--l%l, 233, 28~~285 aria 350,

(*)v9 pc, 13L, ( 3 ) ~ ~ ; A , pp.. 183 and 189.

APPENDIX "An TO CHAPTER TI

OF GILTENP OF LTABIXZTY k3TH RESPECT TO DAMAGE CAUSED BY A ~ I U U F T TO THIRD P m r s ON T H ~ SURFACE

(Based on the r6sm6 of nat ional aviation l eg i s l a t i ons s e t out i n Annex 1 to this Note) ?&

Sta t e s

Argentina Belgiiim Bolivi a Brazi l Bulgaria Canada Ceylon Chile Colombia Costa Rica Czechoslovakia Denmark Dominican Republic Ecuador Finland France Germany Guatemala Honduras Hungary Iceland I r aq Ireland Italy Lebanon Mexico New Zealand Norway Poland Rumanfa S p d n Sweden Switzerland Thailand Union of South Africa United Kingdom Uni ted S t a t e s Uruguay U e S e S o R e Venezuela Yugoslavi a

- Exbent of l i a b i l i t y

.-

N 0 inf ormatior

X x

x X

Notes

(1)Party to Rome Convention,

( 2 ) ~ h e r e are provfsions f o r l imita- t i on i n the avia- t i on leg is la t ion but they a re not ye t i n force,

(3)In the various S ta tes of the United S ta t e s l i a b i l i t y is gene- r a l l y unlimited although there might be s ta tu tory provisions f o r a limited amount of campensation i n the case of wrongful death,

(4)See, f o r amounts of l imi t s the r6sum6 of provisions of nat ional laws concerning l i a b i l i t y f o r damage t o th i rd par t ies on the surface i n Annex I,

ltIn t h i s Table, with the exception of the four cases on which no information i s available, the symbol "Xn indicates the extent of l i a b i l i t y (ice. limited o r unlimited) i n the respective States ,

(25

81, The provisions with regard to s e c u ~ i t y f o r tho operatorD s l i a b i l i t y have @ven r i s e t o many discussions. Ir-I view of tho subs tan t ia l i s sue s of an economic and policy nature which we p embodied i n these provisions, the a t t e n t i o n of the Council was drawn t o themor*) The A i r T rmspor t CommiLtee and Council subsequently studied the provisions, and the comments of t he Council on this sub jec t w i l l be found in Document, nd V Sn t h i s V~l~umee

82, The following questions w i l l be considerad with respect Lo this Chapters

- t he s e c u r i t i e s which may be requestad by the S t a t e overflown by an a i r c r a f t r eg i s te red i n another Sta te ;

- insurance 8s a s ecu r i t y and i t s proof;

- other secur f t i a s ;

- r i g h t of d i r e c t ac t ion agains t tho i n su re r o r guarantor;

- defonces of the insurer ;

- should Chapter IS1 be maintained i n the Convanti on?

83 * Them i s a c e r t a i n amount of inf 'ormtion avai lable on the p rac t i ces of S t a t e s concerning secur i ty required of o p o ~ a t o s s in mspac t of l i a b i l i t y f o r damage caused by a i r c r a f t t o t h i rd p a r t i e s on t h e surface. (SBO Annex TI; see a l so Appendix A t o t h i s Chapter f o r a synthes is of national 1egis l .a t ions an the p a c t i c e s of S t a t e s concerning insurance and other seeurlty and Appendix B t o this Chapter f o r a note on the r f ght of d i r e c t recourse agai nst the insure r as covered by natf onal l eg i s l a t i ogs ) 4

According t o the information on inswenoe p rac t i ces which i s based on r e p l i e s t o I6RQ i nqu i r i e s on var ious occasions and on the t e x t s of na t iona l l eg i s l a - t ions , 16 a u t of the 57 S t a t e s Members of ICAQ may reqtdre insuranao o r o ther s ecu r i t y i n rospoct of l i a b i l i t y f o r damage t o t h i r d p a r t i e s on the surface, Of. these, 1 5 S t a t e s mdre such insurance o r socsui ty compulsory, while one S t a t e has ,sermissive recluiromen ts only,

S t a t e s do nabD a t present, require i.nsur.ance o r o the r secur i ty of air- c r a f t ope r a twa f ~ r t h i rd p r t y r i s k s e I lou~ver, 6 S-tabs have indicated the pos s ib i l i t y that , l a t e r on, thoy may include provision f o r ciampdsoxy insurance in t h e i r legisler- ti ono

1.3 S t a t e s rmko a s p e c i f i c provision in t h e i r l e g i s l a t i o n for, other secu- r i t i e s as on a l t e r n a t i v e t o inswanee,

no 11

- 39 - Ch. I11

84* The Rome Convention provided ( ~ r t , 12) f o r a systen of compulsory insurance, i,e., any a i r c ra f t registered i n one State must, f o r the purpose of flying above the t e r r i to ry s f another State, be insured against the damage referred t o i n the Convention, with a public insurance ins t i tu t ion or an insurer authorized f o r these r i sks i n the S ta te of registsy. It also provided that any- guarantee i n the form of cash deposit o r bank guarantee might be substituted f o r the insurance wholly OP i n part i n accordance with the national leg is la t ion of each party to the Convention.

850 But that Convention did not contain &q provision concerning the r igh t s and obligations of the insurer. Therefore, a f t e r pre%iminw discussion a t joint meetings between the CITEJA and representatives of U T A and IUAI , the Brussels Protocol of 1938 fixed the r igh t s of the insurers aa-d limited the number of the i r defences,

86, I n May 1948, it was deemed that the provisions of the Rome Convention went too far(2); it was also noted tha t several S ta t e s had not ye t introduced compulsory insurance with regard t o a i r c ra f t belonging t o the i r own citiaene.(3) Therefore, it was proposed tha t the insurance should not be compulsory but only permissive, ise. t ha t a S ta te may require tha t any a i r c r a f t registered i n another State must, i n order t o enter i t s te r r i torg , carry o f f i c i a l documentation t o show tha t damage caused to third par t ies on the sur ace f o r which the operator is re- poasible i s secured by insurance o r otherwise.T4)

87. The S ta t e s were consulted on t h i s suggestion, which i n general they considered a s acceptable; only one S ta t e ( ~ e x i c o ) was i n favour of maintaining , compulsory f nsursnce, ( 5)

$8, The principle of missive insuranae was introduced i n the first d ra f t of a revised convention* ?gj However, the question of compulsory insurance was also discussed a t successive meetings of the Committee and par t icu lar ly a t the Taorrnina meeting on the occasion of the introduction of a three-degree system of l i a b i l i t y . Ab t h a t meeting it was decided tha t insurance or other guarantee may be required on a permissive ba i up t o but not exceeding the highest l imi t s then specified i n the convention I! 7

Proposale f o r re-inserting i n the d ra f t tho system of compulsory insurance r e made from time t o time by one or two Delegations but were always r e jectad,( 8

( 1 ) ~ e e Wt, 15 (1) of the present draf t , References t o t h i s subject w i l l be found ins np pp, 57-59 and 130-1311 111, pp, 244-2459 Ng pp. 38-46, 178-180; 192, 195, 199, 200, 202, 205, 207, 209# 211, 2l2* 215, 218-2199: 222, 223g 2269 232, 238-239, 29 5-3U;

8, PP. 133-141, 198,. 25!j9 261, 33& 3 50 and 358; A, ppo 35-36, 969 108-109, 189, 210, 218, 250-251, 276, 307 and 347-352; mo pp, 67-78, 234* 2859 297-304 and 351-352.

( 3 ) ~ e e Appendix B:, t o t h i s Chapter.

I p, 180, (6)v9 Pp. 255-256, 261-262, 332, 350 and 358*

( 8 ) ~ 9 pp. 109 and 251; VII, pp. 68, 78 and 285.

8 9 ~ The insuranas which, pursuant t o the Rome Corrrrentioqwas compulsory f o r any a i r c ra f t registered i n a par t icular State and navigating above the te r r i tory of another State, was deemed sa t i s fac tory i f it was (Ar t , 12)s

- within the limits of l i a b i l i t y detenained i n ~ r t f c l e 8 of the Rome Convention;

- w i t h a public insurance i n s t i t u t i o n , o r an insurer authorized f o r these r iaks in the territory of reg is t ry of the aircraf t .

90. The two conditions have been maintained i n the d r a f t convention with the exception of the deletion of the words #a public insurance inst i tut ionno and wfth changes i n detai l ,

91, But the mafn discussion was centered on two questions8 (a) the veri- ficration of the f inancial responsibil i ty of the insurer and (b) by whom tha t veri- f ica t ion should be made, (2)

The f i n d solution was tha t the f inancia l responsibil i ty of the insurer or group of insurers should be verif ied by the S ta te where the a i r c ra f t is registered,

92e During the discussione various proposals were considered and suecessi- vely rejected, namely2

- the State of Regietrg would stand behind the insured and be l i ab le t o the extent tha t i t s statements o r ver if ieat ions were imal id ; (3)

- each Contracting State should have the r igh t t o designate any f inancial ly responsible insurer o r group of insurers permitted under the laws of such State to ef fec t insurance under the te rns of the Gomention, f o r inclusion in a list t o be maintained by fCAOj(4) - i f the State enbred had any reasonable doubt as to the f inancial respon- s a b i l i * ~ of the insurer, it might require evidence from the insurer o r group of insurers of i t s a b i l i t y t o pay indemnities up t o the amount stipulated i n the convention, i n the national eurrency of such S t a t 3 5 )

( l )~sferences to t h i s subject (Art. 15(2) and (4) of the present d r a f t ) w i l l be found ina II, pp. 37-59 and 131; IXXp pp, 244-245; IV, pp, 38-46, 178-1800 192, 195, 196, 199# 2 0 0 p 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 209, 211, 212, 215, 216, 218-219, 220, 223$ 226, 232 and 238-2391 V 0 pp. 133-1458 198-199p 255-256, 261-262, 323, 332, 350 and 3583

Ap pp. 96# 108-1179 122-128@ 189# 2109 2 5 1 ~ 2 5 2 ~ 27T0 307 and 347-3528 VIIb pp, 78-87, 88-105, 11z9 234* 285-287# 297-304, 351-352 a d 381-382

Document no I1 Ch, I11

93, The Council has pointed out the d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n having the S ta te of Registry of the a i r c r a f t ver i fy the f i nanc ia l responsibi l i ty o f the insurer and it has suggested t h a t Art ic le 15 be modified t o indicate t h a t S ta tes would accegt a c e r t i f i c a t e from the insurer of an overflying a i r c r a f t t h a t the a i r c r s f t i s insured according t o the Convention, together with a c e r t i r i c a t e frm the S ta te of the domicile of the insurer as t o h i s s t a tu s and f inanc ia l responsi- b i l i t y , ( l )

940 The ,possibility of making as a condition f o r the acceptabi l i ty of an insurancs the payment of compensation i n the currency of the S ta te where the damage occurs was also considered,(2) However, such a condition was inserted i n the d r a f t only i n the form ( ~ r t . 26) t h a t the Contracting S ta tes w i l l , a s f a r as possible, f a c i l i t a t e 9ayment of compensation under the provisions of t h i s Conven- t ion i n the currency of the S t a t e s where the damage o c c m , 6ouncf 1 has recommended that S ta tes should reconsider whether some greater asswanbe i n t h i s 2oint cannot be given t o t h i rd par t ies i n the ~ o n v e n t i o n ~ ( 3 )

95, The Rome Cornention provided ( ~ r t , 13) t h a t the proof of any of the secur i t i es (insurance, cash deposit or bank guarantee) should be made i n an o f f i c i a l c e r t i f i c a t e o r by an o f f i c i a l notation on one of the a i r c r a f t paperso

96. The necessity of a ?roof of the insurance appeared a l so during the preparation of the present d r a f t but a s the insurance i s no longer compulsory, it has been merely provided t h a t the S t a t e overflown may require the a i r c r a f t t o carry a c e r t i f i c a t e issued by the g o p e r au thor i t i es of the S t a t e of Registry c e r t i Q i n g the existence of the insurance and other security, It i s a l so provided tha t such evidence may be furnished by f i l i n g with the appropriate authori ty designated by the S ta te overflown a cer t i f ied coAv of the c e r t i f i c a t e of insurance, A form of c e r t i f i c a t e i s attached a s an annex t o the ?resent draft.

97 * During the discussfons proposals s imilar t o those which were sugges e bry the Council with respect t o burdensome insurance were presented and rejected, t43

98, Mith respect t o the form of c e r t i f i c a t e t o be annexed t o the Conven- tion, the Council, i n i t s comments on the d r a f t , has observed t h a t the i nco rp ra - t ion of the c e r t i f i c a t e i n the onvention would be unwise and that , i n any case, the t ex t needs some redraf t ing, F5,

99 e The Rolk dorivention ,,r,ovided ( ~ r t 12(2)) f o r two kinds of guarantees a s su5s.t i- tuks f o r insmmceo

- a cash de i~os i t ;

- c bank guarantee,,

< .; tl)See Document no V i n t h i s Volume, Par;. ? 5

( j )See Document no V fn t h i ~ Volume, Paras. "C - ,

(~)vI I , pp, 78-94.

( 5 ) ~ e e Document no V i n t h i s Volume, 2; * "-Y .' I

Jlocubnt no II Cho I11

100, I n the f i r s t d r a f t of a revised convention these two kinds of guarantees(1) were not specified and the S ta tes were only questioned as t o whether guarantees should be secured "by insurance or otherwisel~.(2) No one S ta t e favoured spec i f ica l ly the inser t ion of a guarantee other than insuronce,(3)

101, I n the successive d r a f t s up t o the present d ra f t , no reference was made t o spec i f ic guarantees; mention was o made of insurance o r "other ~ o c u I . ~ . ~ $ (4) But the f i n a l t ex t ( ~ r t , 15(3) ? includes the same two guarantees as i n the Rome Convention with some modffications,

102. During the discussions the following proposals were considered:

- a l ist of guarantees other than insurance should not be included; (5)

- there should be added, the guarantee of the S ta te of R e g i s t r ~ r ; ( ~ )

- the Conv e n t i on should not f nclude d e t a i l s concerning guarantees; (7)

A l l these proposals were rejectedc

103, + The conditions f o r the acceptabi1ity(8) of the guarantees retained a re described i n Art ic le 17 of the present d ra f t ,

1040 There, it is specified t h a t security i n a form other than insurance sha l l be spec i f ica l ly and preferen t iz l ly assigned t o i~ayment of claims under the provisions of the Convention, A similar assignment of insurance, which ex i s t s i n Article 12(3) of the Rome Convention, has not been included,

105, Ar t ic le 15 of the Rome Convention provided f o r the case of a cash deposit or bank guarantee f o r a l i a b i l i t y with respect t o several a i r c r a f t ; the conditions f o r the acceptabi l i ty of such secu r i t i e s were somewhat complicated* Art ic le 17(2) of the present d r a f t defines the conditions of acceptabi l i ty of any securi ty (including insurance) not only i n the ease of the operator of several a i r c r a f t but ~ S Q i n the case of the o p r a t s r of one a i r c r a f t , For the operator of one a i r c r a f t , the security should be f o r an amount equal t o the l i m i t applicable according t o the provisions of Ar t ic le U, and i n the case of an operator of several a i r c r a f t , f o r an amount not l e s s than the aggregate of the l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y applicable t o the two a i r c r a f t subject to the highest limits,

I n s p i t e of a proposal t o this effect , no specif ic f igure was given f o r a security, considered as acceptable t o cover the t o t a l l i a b i l i t y of an operator of several a i r e r f , a s was the case i n the l a s t sentence of Art ic le 1 5 of the Rome Convention, ?9!

( l )~e fe r snces to this sabject ( ~ r t . 1 5 ( 3 ) of the present d r a f t ) will be found in: 11, ppe 57-59 and 130-1315 =I, pp, 244-2455 XV, pp. 38-46, 178-180, 203 and 238-239; v p pp, 133441, 198, 256, 323, 332, 3% and 358; A* ppo U T s 128-122, 189, 2P0, 218, 25z9 276,, 307'and 347-352% vI19 pp, 105-112, 2349 236-2817, 297-304, 351 and 3810382e

( 3 h P pp. 178-180 and 238-239.

( 4 ) ~ ~ pp. 255 and 350 and A g P e 3076

( ~)VII, pp. 106 and 111.

(8)~eferences t o t h i s subject w i l l be found in8 v p PPo 154-157p 204-205, 257, 262, 325, 333 and 35%; A, gp, 132-133, 190, 23.1, 255-256, 277-278, 308 and 347-3525 m9 pp, U7-126, 235, 288, 297-304 and 352,

( 9 ) ~ Q PO 156. (30

Document no I1 Ch, I11

106, The Rome Convention (Art, 12, l a s t sentence of Para. 2) povided t h a t the cash deposit or the bank guarantee must be brought up to t h e i r f u l l amount a s soon a s the sums which they represent become subject t o reclizction by a payment of comgensation,

Pursuant t o Art ic le 17 (3) of the present d r a f t it i s ss soon a s notice of claim has been given t o the operator t h a t the amount of the securi ty (including insurance) should be increased; and t h i s increase i s to a t o t a l sum. equivalent to: (a) the amount of the security then required i n the case of one o r several a i r c r a f t operated9 m d (b) the amount of the claim not exceeding the l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y applicable t o the a i r c r a f t causing the damage,

D.- RICHT (F DIRECT ACTION AGAINST THE I,WUBW(~)

107. The d r a f t convention, unlike the Rome Convention and the Brussels Protocol, provides f o r a r i gh t of d i r ec t actfon of the person suffer ing damage against the insurer o r guarantor, A t the time the Rome Convention and the Brussels Protocol were drafted, proposals f o r inclusion of such a provision were r e j rcted,

Pursuant t o the present d ra f t (Art, 16(2)), the person suffer ing damage my, Witnou-t p i ' ~ j ~ d i ~ ~ t o any r i g h t of d i r ec t action which he nay have under the law governing the contract of insurance or guarantee, take a d i r e c t action against the insurer or gdarantor i n cases where the l i a b i l i t y of the l a t t e r i s extended f o r the benefit of the p r s o n suffer ing damage, Eie a lso has a r i gh t of d i r e c t action against tlls insurer o r guarantor i n case of the operator 's bankruptcy. Moreover, these r i gh t s of d i r e c t action do not pe jud ice the question whether the insurer or guarantor has a r i g h t of recourse against any other 2erson (Art, 16(3), T h i s provision has been included i n ihe d ra f t t o take care of ambiguity which would otherwise e x i s t i n the provisiofis of Article 16(1) which deals with the defences of the insurer. It -has been said t ha t i f no provision on d i r ec t recourse were included i n the Convention,, there would be no n e t o give the insurer the advantage of the defences available t o the operator. t 27

108. Another question has been whether the defences of the insurer auld be interposed against c l a i m made by third pa r t i e s i n S ta tes other than the S ta te where the insurance was contracted* Aa insurance i s now permissive, it seems i l l og i ca l , especial ly i n S ta tes where there i s no r i g h t of d i r ec t action against the insurers, t h a t a S ta te would not accept insurance with fur ther defences i f it so desired, as the add i t i defences would not a f f ec t the r i gh t s of the t h i rd par t ies aga ins t the operator,

A propotad t h a t the party suffering damage be giveh a preferred claim against the insurance was rejected, although i t made an approach t o a system e e s t - ing i n some naidonal laws, where the victim is given a r igh t of d i a t act ion agaim the f naurer o r guarantor i n the case of the operatort s bankruptcy, f 4 7

( l ) ~ e f e r e n c e s t o this subject dl1 be found in: N, p. 46; V9 pp. 201-204, 257, 333 and 351;

PP, 129-1319 182-1839 211, 2539 2559 277# 3089 334 and 350; m9 Pp. w-125 , 204-205, 2349 299-300, 304, 352, 362-363 end 382'

Document no 11 Ch0 111

100 The provfsion on r i g h t of d i r e c t ac t ion has a l so been studied i n conjunction w i t h the provision of Art ic le 20(1) of the present d r a f t which provides f o r bringing actions f o r campensation only before the cour t s of the place where the damage occurred, f t was thought t h a t the e f fec t of the l a t t e r provision would generally be t o el iminate the r i g h t of d i r e c t act ion against the insurer o r guarantor, since usually such a r i g h t i s l imited t o the courts of the S t a t e es tabl ishing t h a t r igh t , and it i s hardly l i k e l y t h a t S t a t e s w i l l now pass l eg i s l a t i on subjecting t h e i r insurers o r guarantors to d i r e c t act ion i n the courts of other countries f o r the benefit of th i rd pa r t i e s i n those countries where the damage occurred. (1)

I-lo. The insurers i-~ave p i n t e d out the disadvantages of permitting d i r e c t action against insurers i n the S t a t e where the damage occurreds necess i ty of re ta ining l ega l advisers o r representat ives i n almost every such State , thus increasing the cost of the insurance; and adverse e f f e c t on the amount of the claims, since j u r i e s would be sympathetic i n cases where the defendant i s a foreign insurance Company, However, it was not f e l t t h a t these disadvantages were suff ic ient ly ser ious t o jus t f fy weakening the bas i s of the s ing le forum solution by permitting d i r e c t action against the insurers i n the S ta te of h i s residence o r pr incipal place of business concurrently with act ion against the operator o r other persons l i a b l e before the court of the place where the damage occurred,(2)

Ee- DEFLrTJGES OF THE INSURER OR G U ~ N T O F C ( ~ )

111, The 1938 Brussels Protocol p o v i c e s (kt, 1 (1)) f o r four defences of the insurer only, namely8

(a) the defences available t o the operator;

(b) the damage occurred a f t e r the insurance ceased t o have effect ;

(c) the damage occurred outside the t e r r i t o r i a l l i m i t s ?rescribed i n the insurance contract;

(Id) the damage was a d i r e c t consequence of in te rna t iona l armed c o n f l i c t or c i v i l disorder,

1-12, The f i r s t three defences mentioned above have been retained i n the d r a f t convention with cer ta in changes i n d e t a i l and have a l so been extended t o the guarantor, The four th defence i s now available, i n the f i r s t instance, t o the person l i a b l e and, being thus a defence of the operator, i s s t i l l of i nd i r ec t benef i t t o the insurer ,

The insurers have proposed tha t the terms of the Brussels Protocol be retained, ( 4 )

(3)~eferences t o t h i s subject w i l l be found in: n, pp, 59 and 132; ICII, p, 245; TV, pp, 28-30, 46-48, 138, 180-181, 193, 195, 196,

200p 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 23.2, 217$ 219, 221, 223, 226-227, 231, 232, 239-240 and V, p. 105, 150-154, 201-202, 250, 256, 262, 324-325, 332 and 350-351;

A p PPo 129-132, 190, 210, 211, 218, 253-255, 277, 290, 307-308 and 350; ~ I P Pp. 65, 69, ?j6 112-117, 234, 287, 297-304 and 351,

Document no I1 , Ch,, T I 1

F.- SHOULD CHAP!CER 111 BE WNTUNBD I N THE CONVIFaPXON 2 (1)

113, A t the beginning of the discussion on revision, it was accepted tha t the Convention should contain provisions on securi ty f o r the operator 's l i a b i l i t y o a d up t o the Mexlco City Session, there was no proposdl for the delet ion of '

Chapter ITI,

114. A t Mexico City, a proposal was made t o delete the insurance provisions with a mention i n the report t h a t insurance provisions could b the object of special agreement among States. This proposal was rejected.(Z 5 115* During the discussions, it was argued t h a t provisions on secur i t ies were unnecessary, since States par t ies to the Chicago Convention are en t i t led t o impose terms, regulationso conditions or l imitat ions i n regard to foreign a i r c ra f t entering t h e i r t e r r i to r i e s ; and the foUowing question was i n e f f ec t s u b i t t e d r ' ! ( - n -

"Are not the securi ty prar is ions i n conf l ie t wfth %ha Chicago ... Oonventfon which provides, i n Art ic le 5, f o r the r igh t of f l i g h t

over the t e r r i t o r y of every Contracting.State??

It was decided tha t the provisiomof the Chicago Convention did n t preclude the inclusion of provisions on securi ty i n a revised Rome Convention,, P3)

116, Council a lso considered the matter i n i t s cormnents on the e c o n d c aspects of the d ra f t , but it n fe l t t ha t it i s one matter that must ult imately be determined a t the f i n a l Conference a d tha t Council cannot give States any useful advice on it a t tho present timelt.(4?

( l ) ~ e f e r e n c e s on t h i s subject w i l l be found ins V I I 9 pp, 64-78, 90, 92, 94, 105, 111, 127-l28$ 212-215 and 297-298,

(Ih= pp. 69-78 and 212-215.

( 3 ~ ~ pp. 69-78 and 127-128.

(4bee Document no V i n th ia Volume, Paras. 32 and 33.

( ~ a s e d on information s e t out i n Annex I1 t o t h i s ~ o t a )

1. Informatfon avai lable

Information i s avai lable i n respec t of the p rac t ices of the following S t a t e s concerning insurance and other s e c u r i t y f o r darnage caused by a i r c r a f t t o t h i rd p a r t i e s on the surfaces

Argentina Austrul ia Be l c f urn Braz i l Burma Cscvd a Cz~choslavakia Denmark Douin.ican Republi c Egypt Finland Frame

Guatemala Iceland India I r a q I re land I s r a e l I t a l y Mexico Netherlands New Zealand N i caragua Norway

Pakis tan Phi l ippines Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Union of South Africa United Kingdom United S t a t e s of

America U ~ r n a y Ve ne auela

18 S t a t e s requ i re insusanr:e as 0 t h . e ~ s ecur i ty i n respect of t h i rd par ty avia t ion l i a b i l i t y , as f ollowsr

(i) insurance o r o ther secur i ty i s compulsory under varying conditiona i n 17 S~;R.TIBS~

Brazil Canada Cs~chasJ-ovaki a D e m r k E w P ~ Guat eeruala Xcelnnd Italy Mexico

Nicaragua Norway Spai n Sweden Switzerland Union of South Afr ica Uruguw Venezuela

w s Demi-zrk: I n ease of fo re ign operators, it i s up t o the Ministry t o decide whether insurance s h a l l be effected o r other s ecu r i t y given,

Iceland has compulsory insurance i n spec i f i c ins tances -.-- f o r nationd operators only.

Norwa! In practice, a19 commescfal operators and -- f l y ing schools a r e required t o arrange f o r insurancc~,

Swadcna Apparently thei-e i s compulsory insurance f c r -7.-

na t iona l ccunmorcfal av ia t ion operators only,

M y , S , t ~ i t m r l ~ n d specf f i e s t h a t the insurance i s cornpul~oxy f o r fo re ign a i r c r a f t i n _s.c.hwd servico (as distinguished from a i r c r a f t i n non-scheduled service),

( l i ) fnsuranco clay bo requircd pursuant t o l eg i s l a t i on of Portugal, (3' )

3, Sta t e s indicat ing a possible change of a t t i t u d e i n r emrd t o insurance requirements:

( i ) S t a t e s which, i n reply t o a questionnaire c i rculated l a 19U. isdieated tha t , F t h e y s i n s u r a n c e . but which, i n r e ~ l s t o a more recent one have indicated - without s t a t i ng t h e i r present ~ r a c t i c e In this r e m r d - t h a t they have no l eg i s l e ti on requir ing insurance :

Argentina Australf a Netherlands

( i t ) S t a t e s which have -indicated the woasibf l f t y of l a t e r on including provision fo r eomul.som insurance i n t h e i r l e a f s l a t i o ~

Argentina Burma Dominican Republi c

Sweden United Kingdom United S ta t e s

4, Sta t e s not r e s u b i n n insurance o r other s ecwi txs

A s f a r a s ICAO i s informed, there i s no conrpulsory insurance in:

Belgium Burlpa Domfni can Fbp~blf e Finland India I raq Ireland I s r a e l

New Zealand Pakistan Phi li ppfnes United Kingdm United S t a t e s of Werica

(except fo r some s t a t e s ) -

Note: Sweden, i n reply t o a questionnaire c i rculated i n 1948, indicated - t h a t there ma compulsory insurance i n s p e e i f f c instances f o r nat ional operators only.

United S ta t e s of Amcsrfca: Compulsory insurance i n a few S ta t e s only, Insurance a l s o required i n cer ta in instances by Departments of United S ta t e s A i r Force and Navy.

5 0 Sta t e s which, i n ~ r a c t f c e , reauire or m y require a c c o r d f n ~ t o t h e i r hwdslsltion that insurance be taken out with a nat ional insurance company of a given S ta t e before i t r t a r rP tom is overflow:

No Sta tes appear t o have such a requirement,

6 . Sta t e s which ~ r o v i d e i n t h e i r l e ~ i s l a t i o n f o r s ecu r i t i e s rs~lacPna or a l t s r r u t i r e Bo inmwwtce:

Belgium Brazi l Canada Czeehoslovakia Denmark Gua t e m l a Iceland

Mexico ,

Norway S p i n Sweden Switzerland Venezuela

ON THF: RIGII'P OF D~~~lCT&~C,OIITISE AGAINST T I E INSURER AS COVEXED BY NATIONAL LEGISLATIONS ----

R i pht of d i r e c t recourse aga ins t t h e insure r

I n respect of av ia t ion insurance, only one S t a t e ( l t a l y ) ( l ) has expressly provided f o r a r i g h t of d i r e c t recou se, while, i n r e spec t of motor vehicle insurance, only three S t a t e s orwa way,(^) Swedenf3) and ~wi tze r land(4) ) provide f o r such a r i gh t . However, a l a r g e r number of S t a t e s provide, i n respect of t h i r d par ty l i a b i l i t y insurance f o r t he protect ion of t h i r d p a r t i e s suffer ing damage e i t h e r by giving them s r i g h t of d i r e c t recourse under ce r t a in circumstances, ( e . ~ , i n case of bankruptcy o r insolvency of the insurer , o r of unsat is f ied judgments against t h e insured) o r by way of o ther s e c i a l guarantees Thus, i n the cas of av ia t ion l i a b i l i t y insurance, Bramil( 8, ~zachoslovahia f6) and Switzerland?*/) ( t o c i t e the only three examples ava i lab le ) e s t ab l i sh a r i gh t , p r iv i l ege or l e g a l l i e n on t he amount insured i n favour of the par ty suf fe r ing the damage,

(1) I t a l y : Navfmtfon Code lq&, Art ic le 1015, (2) Norway: Law on Motor Vehicles of 20 February 1926, Para. 11. ( 3 ) Sweden: Law on Motor Vehicles of 10 May 1929, Paras, 3 , 19 and 23, (4) Switzerland: L a w on Motor Vehicles of 15 March 1932, Ar t ic le 50,

Decree of the Federal Council of 22 June 194.8 concerning compensation f o r damge caused by foreign vehicles, Ar t ic le 9,

(5) Brazil : Air Code of 8 June 1938, Arti c l e s 100 and 108. (6) Czechoslovakfa: Law on Air Navigation of 8 July 1925, Para. 38, subpara. 4. (7) Switzerland: R e a l a t i o n s of 5 June 9950, s u ~ ~ l e m e n t i n a t he Law on Air

Nnvigation of 21 ~ecembe5 1948, Ar t ic le 181, Para, 2.

g~zijCJ& no XI Cn, I V

1170 This Chnp-ter i s conce~ned d t h t

Y the deafgnation of a cornpeten ' ~ r i s d i c t i o n f o r dealfug with the c l a i m f o r damage under the Conventlonllj ;

- recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments on such claims(1);

- mfacellaneous questions re la t ing t o act ions( l) .

do C.WETENT JURPSDICTION

228, The Rome Convention prcnrides (kt, 16) t h a t the eornpeten$ authorttiear fop enterbafning actions f o r damages under the Convention are, at the p l a in t f f f t a ohoi ee s

9, th% jud ic ia l authoritfa8 of the defendant's ord lmry plaea of ~esfdence, and

* thoee of the place where the damage was caused,

U ~ P XHd. the ear ly d f s ~ u s s i o n s on the ~ e d s i o n of the Rome Convent ono a t propoeal was &a t o have three jurfsdaf~tionsg t h i s proposal was rejected 2) and a ?single forum solution waa r9d6ptbdD whoreby actions may be brought only before the courts of the place where the damage oeeol~red~ althoughp by way of exeeptfm, a l l persons herring claim and the persons from whom p a p e n t of compensation i s efdmed may agrwe t o have the actions brought before the eourba of another kn'traeting Sta te (Artfole 2(1) of the prsaent dmf"t),

Us0 Three other solutiona(3) were considered i n addition t o the s ingle topun solutflons

(a) multiple fora - with a provisf on fo r consolidation of claims fm the court of the place where the damage oceolk~ed, i f the operator elected t o deposit a secur i ty o r es tab l i sh t h a t he had asse ts o r insurance o r othep guarantee auf'ffcient t o sa t i s@ the cl& within the jm9sdiction of the e m t p

(b) multiple f o ~ a - with s imilar p~ovfsbern f o r eonsolidation i f the defendant submits t o the jwfsd ic t ion of the cot& of the place where the damage ocewmd, coupled with compulsory execution of j.udgmen%s in cer ta in eases;

(c) internatiom3. t r f b m a l - t o const i tute ad h s t r ibunals with jm8sdfctfon t o review the decisions of national courts i n cer ta in cfrcumstancesa

121, None of these t h ~ e e a l t e ~ n a t f v e solu.tH n which were submitted t o States f o r a t ten t ion and study a t l e a s t three times, &!'ham been accepted,

(4) Tufce i n 9950 (a f te r the Tsornina and Montreal meetings r e spee t ive~y) and once i n 1951 ( a f t e r the City meletfng)o

122, It should be noted t h a t onJy a few of the aviation legis lat ions contain rules for jur isdict ion in cases of damage caused by aircraft. to third par t ies on the surf ace r

(a) -two States (~olomb5p(l) and ~ c u ~ d o r ( 2 ) ) pacify t h a t actions should be brought only before c o w t h a v i x juriadictbon in the place where darnage has been caused j

123 0 It fe reoogrrfmd that the single forum eolution, while affording the c leares t method of mrntaiang the Ifnits of 1ilabi;Ut;y under the Cornrention, does present ces%d.n difficulties for the person who suffers damageo where the insurance or guarantee OP O ~ B F a s m b available i n the c o u h t ~ where the damage occurred are not suf f ic ient t o sotfsfgr the adjudfcrrted o l a w in moh oountry, which is established as the init$al forum t o whioh the injure emon must have re so r t ( i n the 9 7 ' absence of agremept by all interested parties), 9

1240 Therefore, the neoessity fo r having the judgments of a single forum reoognized and enforced i n other countries where assets may be available, i s i n close relat ionship t o the acceptance of a single f ~ m a NO provisf ons of t h i s kind existed f n the Rome Camrention, The present draft (Art, 28(4> provides t h a t sueh judgments shall be enforeeableo

(a) in the Contracting Statee where the judgment debtor h w hfs residence or princOpa1 placse of businessp o r

(b) f f the aasete available fn that State and $n the State where the judpen t was pmnolmcm3 are fnsnxfffcfent t o satisfy the judgment, i n any other Ooatraatfng State where the judgment debtor has assets,

125 0 There m y be d f f f f a l t f e s where a State refuses t o enforce execution of a foreign Judgment; but the Conference w i l l certainly find a solution t o such a problem which is relatively minor i n Lsaops(lO).

(3) Law on Civil Aeronaut& (No, 89 of 19389, &to 36,,

(2) A f r Trans i t Lw of 193$, kt, 35.

(3) Eseg~~latAons on A9r Traffic. Pn the NatSonal T ~ d t ~ ' m e LO Januam 1% A T t a 116*

(4) & . u ~ v i f t a t f o n Law of 33-May 79&, Art, , 4.6(1),

(5) &ia$ion Law of I1 Jam- Art, 78,

(6) D_egrcr A r t a 771,

(7) Law conearni.tv f o r D q a p Caused 6s &.Con@eauenee of N a v 5 ~ a t i o ~ 26 May lao A r t b Yo

(8) Federal Law on A i r NavX~ation of 21 Deeembw 1% Arta 670

Document no I1 I . '

Ch.1 N Ce - FIISGELLAR'EOUS Q.UESTI OW3 RELATI NG T 0 ACTIONS

126, I n dealing with the question of jurisdiction a d enforcement of ,judgments, the present draft inclu6es provision f o r not if icat ion of the defendant and i f i t e r e s t d partf es ( ~ r t , 2&(2) ); the eonsolidation of actions (Art, 20(3) ); the mn-reopening of the merits of the ease (Arb, 20(5)); the bringing of new action;. on refusal of exeeutisn ~ O ( Y ) ) ; the ~ e f w d . of execution u n t i l f i n a l jPPdgmellh$ has been given on a11 e la im (Art, 20($)); the payment of costa (~rt .20(9)); fnteresx (Art, 20(10)) ;: a d the period of l imitat ion fo r the enforcement of gudgmen.cls (Art, 20 ( 1 1 ) ) ,

129. A l l . problems enumerated i n the present Chapter a re dea l t with i n the last report of the Sub-6;ommjittee on "Jurisdictions" extracts from which are, f o r conarsnbnce, attached as Appendix llAw t o this Chaptsr,

22% The present dr& a lso contains a prwis ion (Art, 19) which provides f o r a t h e U t for making e49a51mg the period of six months provided i n the Rome Convention ( A r t , Xl(P)) has been increased t o one year on the basis that , as a consequence of an accident a v i c t b might be seriously wounded or bothered by serious mental troubles which would revent bin from enforcing h i s r ights within E the too short period o f . s h months, ( )

129, The concept of the Rome Convention (Art, 17) with respect t o l imitat ion of actions has been retained with some modif ica t ions(A~t~2l of the present draf t) ; i n partfculax, the one yew l imitat ion on actions has been extended i n the present d r a f t t o 4x0 yews, (2)

(1) References t o this subject will be found in: V, pp, 157-158, 205-206, 257, 262, 333 and 351; A9 PPa 133a 190, 211, 256, 278, 308, 310, 337 and 344; VIP, pp, 18L1829 23y9 289, 292, 352 a d 369,

(Rt3p.mduaed homin m e ox t rac t s of tho R ~ p o r t g iving comments on the four adkutdonc discusncd by tho Sub-Gommittae and the Legal committee)

The s ing l e forum so lu t ion was f i r e t advanced a t Taomina following the adoption of a composite system of l i a b i l i t y , One of the impadling reasons fo r t h i s act ion was the pos s ib i l i t y t h a t cour ts i n d i f f e r e n t S ta tes might reach d i f f e r e n t conclusions as t o t he bas i s and therefore the limit of l i a b i l i t y e and thus render an e f f ec t i ve a m l i n g down of judgpents i n cases where the limit had been exceeded v i r t u a l l y fmpossfhle,

The r e j ec t i on of the com?osite system of l i a b i l i t y during the present sess ion of the Legal. Gommfttee and the subs t i t u t i on of a p r inc ip le of absolute l i a - b i l i t y (wPth a minor exception i n the case of the de l i be r a t e a c t done wi th i n t e n t t o cause damage) therefore s impl i f ies the j u r i sd i c t i ona l problem and remwes one of the main reasons f o r adopting the s i ng l e forum solution, But it also weakens9 a t l e a s t t o some extent , one important object ion t o such a solut ion, namely t h a t S t a t e s muet give f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t t o judgments rendered by the cour t s of the place where the damage occurred,

A t Montreal, the Sub-Commit t ee concentrated on i n se r t i ng adequate procedural safeguards which would ensure t h a t the operator was not denied due process b"

and na tura l jus t ice , But even with these safeguards, some members found d i f f i ~ u l t y i n accepting the provisions f o r compulsory recognit ion and execution of judgments,

During i t s discussion, the Sub-Committee considered t h i s so lu t i on from the point of view of Contracting S t a t e s , th i rd p a r t i e s and the operator,

Several members emphasfaed the reluctance of S t a t e s to asswne a m u l t i - l a t e r a l obl igat ion t o enforce the judgment of fareign courts , I$.wious mu l t i l a t e r a l conventions which have containad such a provisicm were confined t o a l imi ted nurnber of S t a t e s with f a i r l y homogeneous l e g a l systcms (Bustamente Code and Berm h i l w n y Conventions), The present Convention would be opan not only t o the Member S t a t e s of ICAO but t o nonaember S t a t e s or S t a t e s created a t some f u t u r e date* It; was therefore considered by some members t h a t the i n se r t i on of provisions f o r compulsory recognition would cons t i t u t e a ser ious bar t o wfedo r a t i f i c a t i o n , Other members f e l t t h i s argument would be outweighed by tho advantages confessed by the Conventiono

(3. l) It doprivvo tho p l r d ~ t i f f of hi^ tsndetfonal r i g h t t o choose a forum and i t m~lcc.:a it obl.igalox-y for tho ac t ion t o be brought i n a f o m whish m y bo i n ~ ~ l r l ~ ~ d ~ ~ l t t o both pa r t i e se

(1) Subnitteed t o t he Ssveuth Sassion of t h e 1,~galL Committee

(2) The cour t of the place xhere the damage occurred i s l i k e l y t o be most convenient and would nwxmlly be selected by the p l a i n t i f f , provided h i s judgment was l i ke ly t o be e f fec t ive e i t h e r because the defendant had a s se t s within tihe j u r i sd i c t i on or because simple enforcement proceedings were e-;ailable i f t h e defendant d id not s a t i s f y t he judgment, This court would a l s o be l e s s expensive as witnesses usual17 res ide i n the S ta te where the damage occuss,

(3) If the defendaiit does not vo lun ta r i ly pay t he judgment o r have a s se t s s u f f i c i e a t to meet it within the jur isdic t ion, the p l a i n t i f f would, however, be put t o the incsmenience and expense of k t h e r proceedings f o r enforcement in these countries, This disadvantage would, however, be t o a large extent o f f s e t i f t h e enforeement proceedings were simple and e f fec t ive , It i s pointed out t h a t i f Ar t ic le 1 5 i s e f f ec t i ve ly drafted, the defendant w i l l generally pay without the necess i ty of enforcement proceedings, except where he has been denied due process, o r has a reasonable ground f o r having execution refused,

(4 ) Enforcement of a judgment may be refused f o r a number of reasons which have nothing t o do with the merits of the case, I f enforcement i s refused f o r one of these reasons t h e vict im may f ind himself i n a posi t ion i n which he has exhausted his r i g h t of action, but has no means of recovering the compensation t o which, on the merits of his case, he may be en t i t l ed ,

C.- The defendant

(1) The bas i s of l i a b i l i t y w i l l be the same i n a l l cases,

(2) This so lu t ion i s the only one which ensures t h a t the opera tor t s limit of l i a b i l i t y w i l l be protected i n a11 cases, It eliminates the need f o r a provision s imi la r t o Ar t ic le 11 of the Rome Convention, The Sub-Committee considered t h i s provision of the Rome Convention t o be inadequate but, when examining the multiple f o r a solutions, found d i f f i c u l t y i n p rwid ing a more ce r t a in method of scal ing down i f the operator does not e l e c t t o consolidate the various proceedings i n a s ingle forum,

(3) The defendant's cos t s w i l l a l so generally be reduced and even from h i s point of view witnesses and evidence w i l l u sua l ly be more read i ly avai lable i n t h i s f o m ,

(4 ) The subs tan t ia l objection from the defendanto s point of view is t h a t he is automatically subjected t o the ju r i sd ic t ion of a court i n a S t a t e where he may consider t h a t he i s placed a t a d i s~dvan t age o r where his cause may be prejudiced, On the other hand, i t was pointed out t h a t the operator engaging i n a i r nevigation wi thin the t e r r i t o r y of another S t a t e accepts the protection of the laws of t h a t S ta te and makes use of i t s navf ga t iona l a i d s and f a c i l i t i e e and t ha t therefore i t would not appear unreasonable t h a t he should be subject t o the decis ion of the cour t of t ha t S ta te ,

Specia l comments on r i ~ h t of d i r e c t recoursq

Attention i s invi ted t o t he &rase "actions against the person from whom compensation may be claimed . , . . n ( 1 ) especia l ly i n r e l a t i o n t o the i n su re r o r guarantor, The i n su re r o r guarantor may be sued d i r e c t l y under the provisions of

- -

(1 ) See Ar t ic le 20(1) of the present d ra f t ,

Document no I1 Ch, Ill. - Appo A*

the l a t e s t d r a f t of d r t i c l e 12( l ) of the Convention i n four c i ~ c ~ s t a n c e o t

(1) Glhen the insurance or guarantee has expired but i s continued i n supervised by a public authority

( 2 ) I n cer ta in circumstances, when the damage i s caused outside the t e r r i t o r i a l l imi ts provided f o r by the contract of insurance or guarantee ( I r t i c l e 1 2 (1) (b)).(l)

(3) When the operator is bankrupt ( ~ r t i c l e 12 (2)) . ( I )

(4) When under the law governing the contract of insurance or guarantee there i s a d i rec t r ght of action against the insurer or guarantor, (Article 12 ( 2) ) . ( I f

I n the new d ra f t of Ar t ic le 15(2)9 the phrase *action against any person from whom compensation m y be claimedt1 would include cases ( I ) , ( 2 ) and ( 3 1 , above and would therefore have the e f fec t of r e s t r i c t i n g such actions t o the court of the place where the damage occurred,

The same is t rue of case ( 4 1 , but i n t h i s case the e f fec t w i l l generally be t o eliminate the d i rec t r igh t of recourse against the ineurep o r guarantor, It seems that usually a d i r e c t r ight of action against an ineurer or guarantor i s limited t o the court of the S ta te establishing such r ight , It is hardly l ike ly tha t S ta t e s w i l l now pass leg is la t ion subjecting t h e i r insurers o r guarantors t o d i r ec t actions i n the courts of other countries f o r the benefit of third par t ies i n those countries.

Therefore, the adoption of paragraph (1) of Art ic le (Annex "A") would f o r pract ical purposes eliminate the oossibi l f ty of d i r ec t actions againot insurers except i n cases (b), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) above,

M r , Goodfellow of the I U A I has pointed out the following disadvantage of p e d t t i n g d i r ec t actions against insurers i n the S ta t e where the damage occurred:

(1) It would involve retaining lega l advisers or representatives i n every such State and would considerably increase the cost of such insurance,

(2) It would have an adverse e f f ec t on the amount of claims since jur ies would be sympathetic i n awards where the defendant i s a foreign insuranc e compaqy .

The S u b - C d t t e e concluded t h a t these disadvantages were not suff i - c ien t ly serious t o Jus t i fy weakening the basis of the single forum solution by permitting d i rec t actions against the insurer i n the S ta t e of his residence o r principal place of business concurrently with actions against the operator o r other person l i a b l e before the court of the place where the damage occurred,

A more d i f f i c u l t problem 5s the question of ensuring tha t a d i r ec t r igh t of action may be exercised against an insur r whose residenee o r p r f ~ c f p d ? 1 off ice (as may well be the case under Article U) 3 i s i n a non-Gon%raeting S a t e , becauee if proceedings are ins t i tu ted against the insurer before the court of the place where the damage occurred, the S t a t e of the insurer8s residence would be under no obligation t o recognize and enforce the judgment,

(1) See Article 16 of the present d r a f t

(2) See Article 20(1) of the p ~ e s e n t d ra f t

(3) See Article 15 of the present d ra f t

The Committea nat,ed the fol lowing advantages and disadvantages of t h e proposa3.t

(1) The d r a f t makes express provis ion f o r the consol idat ion of ac t ions i n a s ing le forum and t h i s enables the opera tor t o be assured t h a t t h e l i m i t s spec i f i ed i n the Convoqtion w i l l not be exceeded a s i s poss ib le when ac t ions a re instituted i n u number of fora,

(2) It enables tho vic t im t o have h i s ac t ion determined i n a f o r m convenient t o him,

(3) A m u l t i p l i c i t y of s u i t s , which i s admittedly t o the disadvantage of t h e operator , i s ,permitted only i f the opera tor f a i l s t o take advantage of the a l t e r n a t i v e procedure open t o him, It was suggested t h a t i n a l l cases where t h e l i m i t was l i k e l y t o be exceeded, the opera tor would, i n f a c t , e l s e t t o have t h e ac t ions consolidated i n the c o u r t of the place where t h e accident occwsed.

(4) The victim i s l i m i t ~ ~ d t o a s i n g l e forwn only on condit ion of a s s e t s being a v a i l a b l e f r o s which he can remver the compensation awarded t o him by the cour t ,

( 5 ) It avoids necess i ty for p r o v i s i on^ concerning enforcement of f o r e i g n judgment,

(1) The procedure i s a novel one f o r most S t a t e s which might the re fo re f i n d d i f f i c u l t y i n incorpora t ing i t i n t o t h e i r l e g a l system,

(23 It i s doubtful whether paragraph (5) of the proposed artic1.e which i s based on A r t i c l e X I of t h e Rome Convention, w i l l be ad6quate t o preserve the l i m i t s of t h e apera tores l i a b i l i t y whose he f e e l s unable t o r e s o r t t o the procedure provided i n paragrsph (21,

MULTIPLE E'ORA SOLUTION - JOINT AUSTRALIA N-SIJEDICSH PROPOSAL

The first r 7 t i a l a of t h i s proposdQ)reproduces i n substance t h e so lu t ion contained i n the K C I ~ Conver~tion, It preserves the r i g h t s of c l d m a n t s t o i n s t i t u t e , proceedings i n a number of apsc i f i ed f o ~ a and permits t h e person l i a b l e t o give evidence of the t o t a l 8vlo~~nts of claims aga ins t him with a view t o preserving h i s l i m i t cf l i a b i l l ty,

The second a r t i c l e provides f o r en a d d i t i o n a l procedure which may he invoked by t h e opera tor , NomaJ.ly he would have recourse t o t h i s procedure whenever the re i s a p o s s i b i l i t y of t h e claims aga ins t him exceeding the l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y ,

The underlying p r i n c i p l e of th is procedure i s the voluntary subnission of the opera tor t o the cour t of the p laea where t h e damage occurred, By vi rkue of such submission he becomes e n t i t l e d t o consolidat ion of a14 act ions i n t h a t f o r u , thus ensuring a n e f f e c t i v e sca l ing down of the claims i f t h e l i m i t i s exceeded and other possible advantages, snch a s a reduct ion i n l e g a l expenses, I n consequence tha judgments of t h e forum i n which the consol idat ion ha3 taken place a r e e n t i t l d d t o execution i n o the r Contract ing S t a t e s , subjact only t o 6. minimwn number of safeguards,

-- (1) See Annex %If

Document no I1 Ch, I V e - Appo Ao

Thia proposal was developed par t ly as a compromise between the proposals i n Annexets *An and "Bn and embodies fea tures of each proposal, Conse- quently ce r t a in of the advantages inherent i n the other two p r o p s a l s a re contained i n t h i s proposal and likewise ce r t a in of the disadvantages of s d d proposals have been carr ied over i n t o t h i s one, Without repeating comments previously made, a t t en t i on i s invi ted t o the advantages and disadvantages spec i f i c a l l y applicable t o t h i r proposal.

(1) This proposal meets t o some extent the objections of those S t a t e s which are r e luc t an t t o become p a r t i e s t o s Convention requiring recognit ion of fore ign judgments on a mu l t i l a t e r a l basis , as f a r a s such enforoement would be required only when the defendant has vo lun ta r i ly submitted t o the j u r i sd i c t i on of the coturt rendering tha judgment,

(2) This proposal r e t a i n s f o r t he p l a in t i f f t he choice of fo ra i n manly cases whtle a t the same time permitt ing the defendant t o accomplish consolidation of act ions i n cases where such consolidation would pro tec t the l im i t a t i on of l i a b i l i t y provided f o r i n the d r a f t convention,

Disadvantages

(1) To the extent t o which t h i s proposal requires execution of fore ign judgments ce r t a in S t a t e s mqy be r e luc t an t t o became bound by ito

( 2 ) The f a c t t h a t i n ce r t a in eases cour ts o f one S t a t e may be required t o s t ay proceedings i n cases i n which they have assumed ju r i sd ic t ion and so re l inqu ish ju r i sd ic t ion t o the e o w t e of another S t a t e might cause d i f f i - culty,

(3) If the defendant does not e l e c t %o s ~ a M t to t he s ingle forum there ie a poa r ib i l i t y of d i f f e r en t deci-sf ons ss t o the basis of l i a b i l i t y ,

The Sub-Gommittee examined with considerable i n t e r e s t almost i den t i ca l proposals reubmitted by the B l e g a t e s from the Netherlands and Brazil f o r es tab l i sh ing an l la temat ional Court of B p p e d i n matters a f fec t ing av ia t ion l i a b i l i t y * Theas proposals appear t o modify the proposal at Montreal of the Netherlaadr Delegation e s t ab l i sh an & in te rna t iona l cour t of osi.@nal j u r i sd i c t i on f o r the consideration of each case requir fng adjudication under the terms of the Cornentione The new proporals would e s t ab l i sh the s d t r i buna l a s a cour t of appellate j u r i rd i c t i on from Sta tes8 courts , A d r a f t of the p roposd i n the form submitted by the Netherlands Delegate is attached a t Annex "D", It might be paraphrased thus:-

(1) C l a i m s a r e r e s t r i c t e d i n the first 90 days t o t h e cour t of the place where the damage was caused, A t any time during t h a t period the operator could apply t o have a l l ac t ions eonsolida-bed upon furnishing a s ecu r i t y along the l i n e s of the United Kingdom proposal, If the operator does not e l e c t o r f t l ra ish the secur i ty within the prescribed period, claims may be brought before any forum otherwi s e competent,

Document no I1 Ch,D,t AppA,

(2) If the operator has not fumi shed the securf ty and a claim i s brought before the court of the place where the damage was caused, any judgment rendered by such court is enforceable a s i n the Montreal d r a f t of the s ingle forum solution but i n l i e u of the escape clause contained i n para-, graph(4)of t h a t d ra f t , i f execution i s refused, machinery i s established f o r having the i s sues (including the merits) re-determined by an in te r - nat ional court of appeal,

(3) Article 15 B provides f o r the composition of the court and s e t s fo r th a nuniber of detai led procedural rules; The judgments of t h i s court would be enforceable i n a l l Contracting S ta tes ,

The proposal of the Delegate of Braz i l d i f f e r a i n t h a t i n i t i a l proceedings a r e r e s t r i c t ed in a l l cases t o the forum of the placetwhere the damage occurred and t h a t an appeal w f l 1 l i e not only where a S t a t e i s unwilling t o enforce a Porefgn judgment but from a l l f i n a l decisions of the courts of Contracting S ta tes , I n order t o ensure greater impart ia l i ty , the court would comprise a panel of f i v e judges.

The Commf ttee considered tha t these proposals were unnecessarf l y complex and did not meet some of the important objections t o the s ingle forum and multiple fora solutions, Furthermore, the Committee was unanimously of the opinion t h a t many Sta tes could not accept a solut ion providing f o r appeals from the decisions of domestic t r ibuna ls t o an internat ional court, It i s a l s o of the opinion t h a t any attempt t o develop a solut ion based on an in te rna t iona l t r ibuna l would delay comple- t i on of the convention indef ini te ly , It, therefore, recommends t h a t the proposal be rejected, It reaffirms, however, i t s e a r l i e r view t h a t the Committee should take i n t o account the proposal r e l a t i ng t o the establishment of an in te rna t iona l court t o deal generally with l i t i g a t i o n a r i s ing under a l l aviat ion conventions, when considering i t s future programme,

ANNEX t18H. - NEW TEXT COVERING SINGLE FORUM SOLUTION (1)

(1) Actions against any person from whom compensation may be claimed under the provisions of t h i s Convention s h a l l be brought before the courts of the place where the damage occurred.

(2) Each Contracting S ta te s h a l l take a l l necessary measures t o ensure t h a t the defendant and a l l other pa r t i e s interested may be no t i f ied of any pro- ceedfngs concerning them and t h a t they may have a f a i r and adequate opportunity t o defend t h e i r i n t e r e s t s ,

(3) Each Contracting S t a t e s h a l l so f a r a s possible ensure t h a t a l l claims a r i s ing from a s ing le incident and brought i n accordance with paragraph (1) of this Article a r e consolidated for disposal i n a s ing le proceeding before the same court ,

( 4) Where any f i n a l judgment is pronounced by a competent court f n conformity with t h i s Convention, whether i n the presence of the pa r t i e s or i n defaul t of appearance, on which execution can be issued according t o the procedural law of t h a t court, the judgment s h a l l be enforceable in the Contracting S ta t e where the judgment debtor has h i s residence o r pr incipal place of busfness or, i f the a s se t s avai lable i n t h a t S t a t e and in the S t a t e where the judgment was pronounced a r e i n su f f i c i en t t o s a t i s f y the judgment, i n any other Contracting S t a t e where the judgment debtor has asse t s , upon compliance with the forrualitfes prescribed by th s laws of the Contracting S ta t e where execution was applied f o r ,

( 5) The merits of the case may not be reopened i n proceedings h d e r para graph ( 4 ) 0

(I) Th%s tex t , with fur ther changes, became Art ic le 20 of the present d r a f t ,

(45)

Document no , I f Ch,IV.- Appoh,

! 63 The provisions of paragraph ( 4 ) of t h i s Art ic le s h a l l not be deemed t o require the i s sue of execution i f :

(a) the judgment was given by defau l t and the Court applied t o f o r execution i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t the defendant did not acquire knowledge of the proceedings in su f f i c i en t time t o a c t upon it;

(b) the defendant was not given a f a i r and adequate opportunity t o defend h is fn t e r e s t s ;

(c ) the judgment i s fn respect of a cause of ac t ion which had already, a s between the sadle pa r t i e s , formed the subject of another judgment which i s recognized under the law of the Court applied t o a s f i n a l and conclusive;

(d) the judgment has, i n the opinion of the Court applied to , been obtained by fraud of any of the par t ies3

(e) t h e ' r i g h t t o enforce the judgment i s not vested i n the person by whom the applfcation f o r execwt.ion i s made;

( f ) the judgment fs one which i s corrtrazy t o the public policy of the court applied t o ,

( 79 Notwithstanding paragraph (4) of t h i s A r t i c l e , the court applied t o may refuse execution u n t i l final judgment has been given on a l l claims f i l e d wfthin the twelve months period referred t o i n Article U. i f it i s evident t h a t judgments exceeding i.n aggregate the l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y prescribed in t h i s Convention might be en te red ,

( 8 ) Where a judgment i s rendered enforceable under t h i s Article, payment of costs recoverable undeP the judgment s h a l l a l s o be enforceable. Nevertheless the court applied t o fo r execution may, on the applfcation of the judgment debtor, l i m j l t

the amount of the cos t s t o a sum equal t o ten per cent of the amount f o r which the judgment i s rendered elif orceable ,

( 9 ) I n t e r e s t not exoeedfng four per cent per annum may be allowed an the judgment debt,

0 0 ) A judgment t o which t h i s Article appl ies s h a l l only be enforceable within f i v e e a r s from the date on which it became f i n a l ,

ANNEX ."Brie- NEW TEXT BASED ON THE UNITED KINGDOM PROPOSAL I N C O W O R A T I N G SUGCiESTIOMS OF I T A L I A N DELEGATION

0) Subject t o the provisions of paragraphs (3) and ( 4 ) of t h i s Article, act ions fo r compensation based on the provisions of t h i s Convention may be brought only before the competent court of' t he place where t he damage was caused.

(2) ( f ) Any person from whom compensation may be claimed under the provisions of t h i s Convention may, within ninety days from the date of the inptdent causing the damage, apply t o the competent court of the place where the damage was caused t o have all claims against him In respect of t b t damage adjudicated i n the same proceedings by t h a t court*,

Upon such an applicatfon bofhg made, the Court s h a l l require the applicant t o give pyoof of a s se t s or othsk. securi ty of the nature referred t o i n Art ic le I1 within the jur isdict ion of the court , or of insurance, su f f i c i en t t o s a t i s f y the t o t a l amount of h h l i abb l i t y , i f any, up t o the l i m i t provided i n Article 8 fop the a i r c r s f t concerned or , f a f l fng such proof, t o furnidh aeeuv5ty f o r the sa t i s fac t ion of Me, l i a b i l i t y not exceeding t h a t l i m i t , A guarantee given by a bank in t h s Contracting S ta t e where the damage was caused shall be accepted a s su f f i c i en t secur i ty f o r this purpose,

( f i f ) If the proof or secur i ty required under sub-psagraph ( i f ) is provided b,y the applicant, s teps s h a l l be taken t o join a l l necessary pa r t i e s i n the proceedings and all. other courts of Contracting S ta tes s h a l l refuae t o exercise jur isdict ion fn respect of claims against the applicant f o r compensation under t h i s Convention a r i s ing out of the same incident, except a s provided i n paragraph (4) sf thf s Article,

(fv) I f the applicant f a i l s , w i t h in a period fixed by the court , t o provfde the proof or secur i ty requfred mder sub-paragraph ( f i ) , the court s h a l l s t ay the proceedings on the application,

(3) If a person from wh* compensation may be claimed under the provisions of t h i s Convention does not, w f t h h ninety days from the date of the Incident causing the damage, make the application referred t o in paragraph (2) of this Article, or i f proceedings on h i s applf eatton a r e stayed9 ac t f ons f o r compensati on may be brought:

(a) before a court of the place where the damage wae caused;

(b) before a court of the place where the operator or other person l i a b l e under the provisions of Article 2 has hicr ordinary resfdence or pri:ncfpal place of business;

(c ) f f a d f r ec t r i gh t of actfon l i e s against the insurer or guarantor, before a court of the place where the insurer or guarantcr has his a r d i m r y residence or pr incipal place of busineras, An ac t ion shall not be brought 5.n t h i s foram against the operator car other person l i a b l e except joinlt;ly with the insurer or guarantor,

(4) Pn the evsnt t h a t any ~ompene~~t fon awarded in a f i n a l judgment by a court of the place where the damage was caused is not paid w5thin ninety days from the date of the judgmen%, the c l a i m n t may Sake such praceedfne;en a s m y be avai lable t o him t o enforce the judgment wherever the person PSrrbBe has as se t s or p m m e his claim by means of a new act ion before any of the other courts referred t o i n paragraph (3) of thfa Article,

( 5 ) I f several claimants i n s t i t u t e proceedings under the provfsions of paragraphs (3) or (4) sf t h f s Article before d i f f e r en t trFbunals, the defenaqnt my, before each such t r i b m 2 , give evidence of ttaa t o t a l amount of tkke elaims against him w f t R a view t o the preservation of the limits of h%s E%abilSty a s provided i n Art ic le 8,

AlWEZ "Cw , - NEW TEXT COVEZING THE JOINT AUSTRAL1 AN-SWEDISH PRQPOSAL

Art ic le 915

(1) Subject t o the provfsfons of Art ic le 15 bis, act ions f o r compensation based on the pro~rieions of this Convention may be broughtx

( a ) before a court of the place where the damage occurred,

(b) before a court s f the place where the operator or other person l i a b l e under the provfsisnzs of Art ic le 2 has his ordinary revidenee o r pr incipal place of business,

(c ) i f a d i r ec t r i g h t of act ion lies against the insurer or guarantor, before a court of the place where the insurer or guarantor has h i s ordinary residenee or pr incipal place of businessll An act ion s h a l l not be brought i n t h i s forum against the operator or other person l i a b l e except jo in t ly with the insurer or guarantw,

(2) I f several claimants i n s t i t u t e proceedings under the provisions of paragraph (1) of t h i s Art ic le before d i f fe ren t eourts, the defendant may, before each such court, give evidence of the t o t a l amount, of t h e claimsls against him with a view t o the preservation of the limfts of Me Pfabf l f ty a s provided in this Convention,

(1) Any p r a m from whom compensation may be claimed under the provisions of th f s CanvenP;ion may, within ninety days from the date of the incident causing the damage, apply t o a competent dourt of the S ta te where the damage occured or t o an authori ty designated by tha t S ta te t o have a l l chime against him i n respect of tha t damage adj~a6icated i n the same proceedings by a court of tha t S ta te (and such applica- t i on s h a l l const i tute an undertaking t o submit t o the jur isdict ion of the courts of tha t S ta te i n respect of a l l such claims),

2) The courts of a f l other Contracting Sta tes s b f l thereupon s tay any proceedings d e r this Convention, against the applicant a r i s ing out of the same i nc i dent,

(31 Upon application being made in accordance with paragraph (1) of t h i s Article s teps sha l l be taken t o join a l l necessary pa r t i e s in the proceedings,

41 Where any f i n a l judgment i s pronounced by a competent court under t h i s Article, whether i n the prebence of the p a ~ t i e s or i n defaul t of appearance, on which execution ean be issued aocordfng t o the procedural law of t h a t court, the judgment sha l l be enforceable in the Contracting State where the judgment debtor has h is res i - dence or prfncfpal place of business, or, i f tRe a s se t s avafPabPe i n t h a t S ta te and in the State where the judgment was pronounced a r e insuff ic ient t o s a t i s f y the judguient, in any other Contractfng S ta t e s where the judgment debtor has asse ts upon compliance with the formalit ies prescribed by the Paws of the Contracting Sta te where executf on was applf ed for,

(5) The merits of the case may not be reopened in proceedings under p r q F a g h (410

09 The proviasf one of paragraph ( 4 ) of t h i s Grtf cle sha l l not be deemed t o require the fssae of execution if the judgment has, in the opinion of the court applied to , been obtained by fraud of any of the par t ies or i s contrary t o the public policy s f the court applied to,

e 71 Where a Judgment is rendered enforceable under t h i e Article, payment sf costs recoverable under the judgment sha l l aPao be enforceable, Neveirtheless the court applied t o fo r execution may, on the applicatfsn of the judgpent debtor, Eimft the am~unt s f the costs t o a sum equal t o ten per cent of the amount fo r whfch the judgment fs rendered enfor~eable ,

(8) I n t e r e s t not exceeding fm per cent per annum may be allowed on the judgment debt,

( 9 ) A judgment t o which t h i s Brtfele applies sha l l only be enforceable within f ive years from the date on which it became f ina l ,

ANNEX WDQL, - TEXT SUBMITTED BY THE NIETHERLANDS DELEGATE

Artfefe 15

( 1) Claims fo r compensation based upon fhe prcsvisions of t h i s Convention may, subject t o the provfsi on of paragraph (3) of t h i s Article, only be made i n the court of the place where the damage occurred,

(2) The operator my, within 3 months from the date of the accident, make an app l i ea t im t o the court of the place where the damage occurred t o assess h i s t o t a l l i a b i l i t y t o pay compensation under the provisions of th f s Convention and t o determine whether h is I f a b i l i t y can be limited under Article 8 and i f SO, t o what amount, On any such application the court sha l l , i n preliminary proceedings which shall take place a s soon a s possible, fix the amount of the secwfty t o be given by

the operator for the satierfactxlon of h i s l i a b i l i t y , The amount of such aecurf%y shall not exceed the amount f o r which the opesato~ m i g h t be l i a b l e emder the pravf- a i m s of Art ic le 8, and may be h rn i ehed i n the form of s guarantee or other seemf%y which confonns with the requirements of BrtEc41ss 11 and 13 of %his Coavention,

The Court may provide f o r a s t a t y of the proceedings in the evant sf the secur i ty not b e k g given wfthfn the time fixed by %he court , The court 3hl%- in addition give a l l the necessary d i r e e t i o ~ s f o r %he joining of par t ies fnterested a s par t ies t o the proceedings and sbesP1. proceed to make the assessmen% and determfm- tfon referred t o In thts paragraph,

(31 I f the operator s h a l l not within the period of three months make the appl%cation referred t o in paragraph ( 2 ) , or f f ,, i n eonsequenee s f h i s f a i l u r e t o provide the securi ty , proceedings upon his application 8 b E l be stayed, persons suffering damage may proceed with t h e i r elaims before a c o u ~ t of t h e place where the damage occurred, and any court eompeLem i n accordance with fts m law,

(4.1 Notwithstanding para graph (3) of this Article, each Contra c t h g Statis s h a l l , so f a r a s possible, ensure that a l l claims ~ r i s f n g from e s ingle rncident are consolidated f o r disposal i n a s ing le prozeedbg whenever such claims enter within the scope of the l fmite t fon provisions of ArRicle 8 and whenever there is substant ia l evidence t h a t judgments exceeding ka aggregate the I i n i t a of PiabflFty prescribed i n tht Artic le may be entered upon these c l ams ,

Article 1 5 A

(1) If pwsuan% %a paragraph (3.) of Article 15, t h ~ person suffsmng damage has elected t o proceed wfth MB) d a i m before a mtirt of %he place wmre $he damage was caused, any! O"fmk ,judgment prseaohud by such court, whether in %he presence of the pa r t i e s or i n defaul t sf appmance , on which execution can be issued according t o the procedural Bew of t h a t enulrt, s h a l l also be enfsraeabie in the Contracting S ta t e where the judgment debtor ns resident ox., bei~..p a company o r other body csrporate, has i ts pr incipal placa of bus:mess and, tm%ass %he asset& avaiPab1e i n t ha t S t a t e and i n the S4a4;e whey6 t he j~dgrnent bras prm0?rmm5 5re sufficfant. t o s a t i s f y the judgmesp-t, fn any sther Ccn t~~ae t fng Sta%e whers the jadgmat debtor has ass&$,

(21 However, no Contracting S ta te wU.1 be ebBig6d t a ex9orce any 2 u d p s ~ t w f thout an exequatw havbg been gfvesl by the competent, corn t of t h a t S t a t e or without similar formal i t fes h9vfng been complied with, p~oo%ded that such requireme:n%a may fn no event r e s u l t i n t o the f i n a l refusal sf the enforcement of %he j~dgment, except i f n

( a ) tihe judgment of which emcut ion i s requested does not conform t~ the condi- t i ons mentioned in paragraph (1); OP

(b) the r i g h t t o enforce the Judgment $3 nsL vested i n the person by whom the application f o r execution i s made; or

(c) execution i s requested more than one year a f t e r the judgment waa p~onsmcedg or

(d) a% the request of the person against whom emfercemenh 1s sough%, the Court or other authori ty applied t o f o r execution of the judgmeult, 'has referred the claim t o an in te rna t iana l court end h a nst%fied %he other S t a t e in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2) of' Art ic le 15 B,

(3) Notwfthstanding paragraph (2) of th f e Article, the Court a2plf ed t o may refuse execution u n t i l f i n a l judgment has been given on a l l @Pairas f f l e d Sf it i s reasonably t o be expected t h a t judgments exceeding fm aggmgate the Ifmits of l i a b i l i t y prescribed in Artic le 8 might be enkered, If the judgment t o be executed was given on a claim f i l e d within the six rnon%bs period referred t o in Article 14, the Court may only s o refuse execution if it f a reasonably t o he expected that judgments r e l a t i ng t o elaims f i l e d within t h a t period, exceeding i n aggregate the l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y prescribed i n Art ic le 8, might be entered,

Artf c b 15 B_

(1) If a Conutracthg S t a t e refuses the enforcement of a judgment a s mentioned I n paragraph (1) of Article 15 A, pursuant t o a request a s mentioned in paragraph &2)(d) of Art ic le 15 A , such Sta%e sRal1 within a period of ,, , , days a f t e r execu.tion of the judgment was requested from i t s competent au tho r i t i e s by the person claiming damages, no t i fy the other S p t e t h a t a request has been made f o r the clafm t o be redecided by an in te rna t iona l court ,

(2) The not i f ica t ion referred t o i n paragraph (1) shall. include:

(a) the f u l l names and addresses of both pa r t i e s ,

(b) indicat ion of the court whieh had prcmounced the judgment of whi eh enforcement is sought, and the date upon whieh da9d judgment was pronomeed,

(c ) the date upon which execution of the judgment was formally requested from the competent au tho r i t i e s af t he S t a t e where enforcement i s sought,

(d) the name of the person t o become member of the fnLernatfonaP court on the pa r t of the notffyfng S ta te ,

(31 Upon rece ip t of such not i f fea t ion the State? ao'notiffed &a19 d t h o u t delay appoint a second member t o the internat ional court and s h a l l no t i fy the other S t a t e of sneh appointment, The two members appointed ahaPB immedfatelJ proceed %o the choice of a t h i rd member who s h a l l ae% aa ehairmn, If no such t h i r d member w i l l have been so appointed fn common agreement d t h f n a period of ... days a f t e r the appointment of the second member had been not i f ied t o the other S ta te , the t h i rd member sRall be appointed by the President s f the Permanent Court of Just ice a t the request of e i t h e r of the S ta tes eoneerned,

( 4 ) The court thus established sha l l render a judgment on the elaim and on any such counter claims a s a r e founded on the same fncfdent on which the claim i s based, without in any way being bound by previous judgments delivered with respect t o the s am clafm and counter clecim(s).

( 5 ) APP decisions of the Court shell be taken by major%%y vote,

g 6 ) The Court s h a l l have i t s sea t in the State where the damage occurred and s h a l l follow the procedm8l rules e f fec t ive f n the place where the damage occurred except such ru l e s a s under the e i remstances of the ease it w i l l f ind unjust t o one of the par t ies ,

( 9 ) The judgment of the court &a11 include such al locat ion of the cost of l i t i g a t i o n a s the court may deem equftable, excluding the costs referred t o i n paragraph 1:9) . (81 The judgment of the court rendered in accordance w%%h the provisions of t h i s Article shall be snforeaable in a l l Contractfng S t a t e s mbg"e@t, t o %he r i gh t of each Sti3te t o require tRat a previous exeqmtur be secured or t h a t s imilar forma- l i t i e s be complied wfth, provided, however, that such requirements may not r e su l t i n t o the final. refusal of the enforeernen% by snch S ta te , except in the cases referred t o i n paragraph (2) (b) and (c) sf A r L i e l e 15 A ,

g 9 Each S t a t e shall pay the expenses incurred by tb% member of the court whom f t has i t s e l f appafnted, and the S t a t e which has taken the fn%t ia t fve t o the establishment -bf the court shall, moreover, pay the expenses incurred by the th i rd member and the general expenses connectad with the establishment and the a c t i v i t i e e of the court , provided t h a t nothing i n t h i s paraqaph s h a l l be deemed t o prevent the S ta te whieh has taken the i n i t f a t f v e for the establlahment of the court from having i t s expenses reimbursed by the defendant party, or t o prevent the other S t a t e from having i t s expenses reimbursed by the other partyd

R E S U M E

STATE: LAUS

(1)

Argentina Civ i l Code

Bolivia

Law of 11 September 1936 (Approval of the Rome convention)

Regulations concerning A i r Traffic i n national te r r i tory , 10 January 1939

OF PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAWS CONCERNING LIABILITY FOR DAMACE TO THIRD PARTIES ON THE SURFACE

PRINCIPLE OF EXCEPTIOHS 1 - LIMITATION OF LIABILITY I m)

Liabi l i ty based on Fault of the v i c t b Unlimited f a u l t ( ~ r t , 1109)

o r Presumption of f a u l t (br t , 1133)

I

1, The person gui l ty of an a c t which, due t o h i s f a u l t o r negligence, causes the damage

(Art, 1109) 20 The owner

( k t , 1133) - Absolute l i a b i l i t y Fault of the victim Limited !The operator

(Art, 2) (Arto 3 ) (Art, 8) 1 (ma 4) i

Note: The a r t i c l e s c i ted a r e those of the Rome Convention. - The deposit of the Belgian instrument of r a t i f i ca t ion of t h i s Convention took place a t Rome on 14 October 1936,

I The provisions of the Rome Convention w i l l be applied on Belgian t e r r i to ry as long a s Belgium is a party t o this Convention, and i provided t h a t the a i r c r a f t has been registered e i ther abroad or i n i Belgium i t s e l f , (br t ic lea 1 and 2 of the Law of 11 September 1936), ,

Absolute l i a b i l i t y Fault of the victim ( ~ r t , 113) (Art. 113)

Unlimited Joint ly and severally: 1, The owner 2, The operator

( ~ r t , 115)

Docum

ent no I1 A

nnex I - 64 -

A i r Navigation Act, No, 15 of 1950

Decree-Law concerning A i r Navigation 14 October 1925

Law on C i v i l Aero- nautics, NO, 89, 26 May 1938

Civil Avfstion Law, 1949

A i r Navigation Law, 8 July 1925

- - -

Absolute l i a b i l i t y (section 9 (1))

Absolute l i a b i l i t y (Art0 54 (1 ) )

Fault of the victim (section 9 (1))

Fault of the victim (Art0 53 (2))

Unlimfted

Unlimited

Note: The damage caused by or from an a i r c r a f t shall be within the - competency of the author i t ies of the place where the damage was caused, according t o the ordinary rules of jurisdict ion and procedure .,

Absolute l i a b i l i t y (qualif ied by a statement t ha t the common law i s applicable) ( A r t , 103)

Absolute l i a b i l i t y (Para. 29 (1))

Fault of the victim o r of a third party

(Para0 31 (1))

U n l M ted

lo The owner (Sectfon 9 (1))

2, The h i r e r f o r more than 11 days (Section 9 (2 ) )

Provision fo r inden- ni f icat fon of owner by other person legally l i a b l e e

(Sectton 9 (2))

Joint ly and severally: 1, The owier 2, The a i r c r a f t con-

macckr 3, The author of the

damage ( A r t , 53!1))

-- Every en t i t y of c i v i l aviat ion.

( ~ r t , l ~ 3 )

Joint ly and severally: 1, The possessor 2, The p i lo t 3, Tina owner i f there

i s no possessor 4. The holder(d6tenteu~) 5, The unlawf-dl user

(Pare, 29 (1)(2) (3)(6B

Finland

Aviation Law 1 h7 1923

-

Law on C i v i l Air Navigation, Boo 1915, 28 January 1949

- -

A i r Transit Law 12 September 1936

A i r Hadgation Law, 25 May 1923

Air Navigation Law, 31 May 1924

Absolute l i a b i l i t y ( ~ r t . 62)

Bbsolute l i a b i l i t y : a) i n the case of

objects thrown f r o m an a i r c r a f t i n flight;

b) f o r damage caused by objects which have f a l l e n from an a i r c r a f t on take-off o r landing

( m o 34)

Fault of the victim ( w . 36 (2 ) )

Force ma jeure (appxed to) 1Andfng and take-off o w

( k t . 34)

1

Note: The Law does not give any information on other damage caused - t o th i rd par t ies on the surface,

Case of evident neces- s f t y (applied to objects

Absolute l i a b i l i t y

O

Fault of the victim 6 )

thrown f r o m an a f r c r a f t ) (Art0 34) I

Unlimited

Absolute l i a b i l i t y k t . 53)

Fault of the victim (Arto 53 ( 2 ) )

Unlimited

1, The possessor 2, The pewson who uses

t h e a i r c r a f t on behalf of the proprietor (Art, 36 (1))

h e r s of a i r c r a f t who a r e 1, Companies 2, Corporations 30 Fhyslcal persons

1 The owners (Parao6) 2- The unlauful user

( - 0 a 1. The operator ( ~ r t . 5 3 ) 20 In case of hire,

jo in t ly and a ) The owaer

STATE

Germa~y

Guatemala

(1)

Air Navigatioc Law of 29 July 1936, as amended on 27 September 1938 and on 26 January 1 9 0 e

Proclamation No, 145 of the Federal ~Wrifstry of Communications of 21 June 1951.

Abeolate l l a b i l l t y (Para, 19 (1))

I

Decree 563, C i v L l 1 Absolute l i a b i l i t y ( A r t c 105) Aviation Law,

March, 1949

Note : -

-

Fault of the v i c t i a (Para, 20)

Fault of the person injured or k i l led or of the owner of the goods damaged on the surface ( the l i a b i l i t y i s attenuated or cancelled t o the extent tha t it is proved tha t such fau l t or negligence contributed t o or caused the damage or injury

(Art, 106)

Limited: f o r a i r c r a f t up t o 2,500 kilogram : lOO,CX>O Harks ($23,809. US) fo r a i r c r a f t weighing more than 2,500 kilograms, 40 Marks ($9.52 US ) per kilogram v i th a maximurn of 300,000 Marks ~ ~ 4 2 7 . w Maximum per person, 30,000 h r k s (Wp1420 (para* 23 (1) (2))

Limited: 5,000,00 quetzals ($5,000,00 US) f o r each person; 50,000000 quetzals ($5O,OC?O.00 US) i n respect of the t o t a l value of persons or property damaged, destroyed or injured

(Art. 105) Unlimited: i f criminal o r *dokse1! a c t s or omissions of the enterprise.

(Artc lcn) The l i a b i l i t y of the a i r transport enterprise i n respect of accidents caused by an a i r c r a f t on the surface t o persons, or property of th i rd part ies e i ther by the negligence i n the hand- l ing of the a i r c r a f t o . O , or through the fau l t of the employees o r ground personnel of the enterprise i s governed by the common lawo

(Art0 108) Guatemala ra t i f i ed the Rome Convention and the Brussels Pmtocol on 6 July 19390

1. The operator (fiF.al.tel-!l) (Fcirao 19 (1))

2. Tne unlh~f i l l user (Para, 19 (2))

Every a i r transport enterprise

( a r t , 165)

Docum

ent no I1 A

nnex I

S'i'AlE

Poland

--- - - - - - - -

Fauit of the victim Force majecre Taking of all measures possible t o avoid the accident

(Art. 60)

Unlimited 1, The omer ( k r t c 59(1) 2, T ~ P h i r e r entered i n

the Aorcnautical Re- g i s t e r (Art, 59(2))

30 The nnlswful user (Art, 5 9 ( 3 ) j

Jo in t ly and sevgial ly *The person who has c o d t t e d the f e u l t

(Art, 59C4))

Presrt3ptio2 of f a u l t (Art icles 59 and 60)

Decree cn A i r Nsvig~- t ion 14 March 1328

Roumanie. r a t i f i e d the Rme Convention on 23 Parch 1935

A i r Navigation Act BoEo 2480

(enacted i n 1938)

Unlimited Absolute i i a b i l i t y ( C h p k r 4, Section 29)

Fault of the victim The owner ( ~ s z t i o n s 28- 30)

I I r

or of a t h i rd party (Section 30 ( 2 ) )

On an aerodrome : (force ma-ieure ( f a u l t of the agents (of t he aerodrome (Section 30(1))

In the case of objects f a l l i n g from the a i r c r a f t : no excuse (Section 29)

Jofn t ly and severally: 1, The p r s o n clirectlg

l i a b l e (one a t f au l t : 2, The h i r e r 3, The operatcr:

Subsidiarf l y : lc The owner (Base 12,

NO" 106) ? 5 s

Limited (Base 12, No, 112) (pbss ib i l i ty of abandonment f o r the ownefi) (Base 12, No. 109)

Draft bases f o r the draf t ing of an A i r Navigation Code (not ye t i n force but approved by a Law of 27 December 1947)

Absolute l i a b i l i t y (Base 12, NO, 105)

Note: Spain r a t i f i e d the Rome Convention - on 28 June

i i STATE I (1)

I Sweden

i i Law concerning L iab i l i ty f o r Damage caused by A i r Naviga- t ion - 26 h y 1922

Federal Lnu on Aip Navigatf on, 21 December 1948

Unfon of South Afr%ea

- - --

Avf a t f on Act 1923 21 b y 3.923

(11) ( 111 1 (IV)

Absolute l i a b i l i t y Fault of the victim Unlimited (Para, 1 ) (Para, 1 (2))

Absolute l i a b i l i t y Fault of the victhn ( k t o 64) ( U t e 79)

Absolute U a b f l f t y Fault of the victim (section 9 (1)) (Section 9 (1))

U n l f m i t s d

(Section 4.0 (2))

Note: The Civi l Aviation Act, 1949 repeals the Air Navigation - A c t , 1920 and a l l of the provisions of the Air Navigation Act, 1936 concerned with the l imi ta t ioa of l i a b i l i t y ,

1, The omer (Para. I ) 2, The unlawful user

(Para, 3 ) 3, The holder (%8tent-enr1

(Para, 4 )

1, ms o p r z t o r (hrt064) 2, The u n l w f u l user

( A r t , 65)

10 me GSm8F

(Sectfon ? <I)> 2, Tne born fide hirer

f o r a p e r i d exceeding 14 days

(Section 9 (2))

The O ~ B P

(section 40 (2)) Provision for f n d d f i c a t i o n of owner by other person l ega l ly l i a b l e ,

f o r en afrship: f o r a bnllcon: f o r a glider:

52 25,000 - ($70,OoOo US) 2 5,000 - (%14,UGOo US) £ 2,000 - ($ 5,6COo US)

f o r other a i r c r a f t :

up t o 5,030 p n d s E 10,WO ($28,K.3. US) and not more t h ~ n 2 5,mC ($14,OCO, US) f o r property damage

front 5,000 up t o 10, COO pounds 2 10,000 - ($28,000, US) and, as regards property &i<nilge, not morz than 21 - ($2,80 US) f o r each pound of t he veight of the a i r e ~ a r ' t

f roa l o 9 030 pounds and up t o 25, COO pounds 21 - ($2,80 US) f o r each pound of t he weight of t he a i r c r a f t

nore thar, 25,000 pouads t 25pCO0 - ($70,000, E)

Note: Section 66 of t he Civil Aviation Act, 1949 provides t h a t - ce r t a in provisions of t he Act including Section 40 ( l i a b i l i t y of a i r c r a f t i n respec t of ... surfacs damage) may be extended t o colonies, protectorates , e t c o by Order i n Council. There appears t o be no provision fop such an extension of Sect ion L,2 of t h e Act ( l imi ta t ion of l i a b i l i t y ,)

Docurnent

1;'

.I1 - -.*-

--,.-..- A

nnex I

.,-i

a, 1.d

U7

P.G

k

s: a

l4J

0;

+,d 0 k

rl

h

5 .d P

ol-

dm

l-i

R

Q) 0

4 4

3 4

rl

0

0 d)

a M

nu

4

hn

nn

Docum

ent no 11: A

nnex I

I n t h i s paper will be fosasd $11 jrrnni l -qy form a statement of the pract ices of States concernbg the s s c u ~ f t y ~t?qui.red of operators of a i rcrafb i n respect of l i a b i l i t y f o r a q e caused by airc r ~ f t Lo t h i r d p w L 3 . o ~ on the surface,

The source material on wh.fch this i ~ ' o : m t i o n i s based consists in

- replies made by States t o an inquiry made 'by C o u ~ c i l during 1947 and 194.8 concerning the fnsmance sequ2remmLs of States;

- ran fnqufry made by the A i r Transport Bureau ( i n 1951) i n connection with the work of the A L r ICranaporL CurrlmEttfse and Courncfl on the sconoPlfc aspects of the draf t eonvcmtfon on dtluge caused by foreign dxcraft to th i rd pozP-&%es on the s~-~fe.c:e;

- national. 1egfs:Latfons on av:f.a-tion in the f;ilee of' the Organization,

According t o the inf"omntfon receivod Pn reply t o the most recent inquiry, the current IcgLs$at:ioai of A~genMm does not mke insmance agafnst the risks, of damage t o th i rd pw.9,im 011 the s-wfaco corrapu9sol~y, ThSs obligation doamp however, appen in t he first, dr&% of tho AesomutSoal Code, which f s now under study, The .latest infr~matSon does not s t a t e whether or not in swame i s ~ e q u f r e d i n practice,

Ho~~revor, i n reply ko tho earl ier irqrlilqy, Argentina advised the Organiza- t i o n t h a t a.2rlfnes are obllgcd .to 9 1 4 ~ ~ 3 a lp savigation r i sks (including the risk of d m g e caused by aimmt"t t o third parties on the surface) covered f o r u i r cmf l f"ly5ng ovcisr k g a r ~ t ir&a ta temi%o.qy, but the Government does not require t h a t the insurance be camfad with 2 ts m t i o r d compaw(l),

Aceording t o the informatfon reeolued in roply t o the most recent inquiry, there i s no l eg i s l a t ion i n Aust~al=la requErhg t h a t an a i r c r a f t operator must Insure against the rfslcs of d ~ r i ~ g a by h i s a i r c ~ a f t t o thtrd par t ies on the surfaceo The only 3egis3atTon of thfs mtrl.~% is that wUoh canpels the uwners of motor vehfc1.w t o f m u r ~ a g a i ~ ~ s t t h e risk of injury t o th%M paPtie~a

_.i-

w ~ h e national oompnqy refermd ro i s called SmSuo k r o n ~ u t i c o Comercia1 (S,A,C,) and is rnlde up of mhod a i r Lranspwt complznfas now i n existence i n Argentina and State afrliaies, w t t h a prowSas,bn for thls admission of a w famth6r mbed a i r t ~ a n s p m t . conpawtt~t.~ t ha t r,9y be ereatad i n the future, (sea Llur Nolo, WOOL$, ArLicle 1, 6 Bcptcmber 1947). The Ssgwo Aerondutico Comorcial insures piskg t o which cc;mpnr~%~e of which it i s coxposed are subject,

However, i n a reply t o the ea r l i e r inquiry, it was s tated tha t Australia requires applicants seeking permission t o establ ish a regular public transport service i n t o Australian t e r r i to ry i n accordance with a b i l a t e r a l agreement t o orovide a concise statement of present and/or proposed insurance coverage and l i m i t s thereof fo r l i a b i l i t y t o th i rd par t ies f o r injury or damage within Australian t e r r i to ry , A t tha t time it was not cer tain tha t the insurance requirement would be compuslory, but it was assumed tha t a ca r r i e r operating in to Australian t e r r i t o r y would be obliged t o carry appropriate insurance t o enable it t o discharge l i a b i l i t y a r i s ing from i ts operations,

Belgium

Belgium does not require( l ) foreign or national operators t o maintain insurance of r i sks ,

Brazi l

The Brazilian Government requires the person or company i n whose name the a i r c r a f t is registered, or who uses and operates such a i r c ra f t , t o furnish a guarantee f o r corn e satfon i n respect of damage caused by such a i r c r a f t t o persons or propertyy2y. This applies t o Brazilian nationals.

The car r ie r , owner or operator of the a i r c r a f t may, instead of insurance, furnish a guarantee cons;-sting of an appropriate bond or security approved by the Government, t o be furnished by a person or company whose domicile or head- quarters e re i n Brazil, o r the pr ior deposit of cash or securi t ies(3) .

The authoriaation o r the re-validation of the c e r t i f i c a t e of airworthinese of an a i r c r a f t may be subject t o the furnishing of insurance or one of the other guarantees (4).

If the guarantee consists of insurance the owner, ca r r i e r or operator may a t any time be deprived of h is c e r t i f i c a t e of airworthiness i f he is not able t o prove t h a t he is duly complying with the clauses of h i s insurance policy and, more especially, i he is not able t o prove tha t he is making punctual payments f of the premiums (5

Foreign operators a r e required t o cover by insurance, only the r i sks of damage t o th i rd par t ies which may be caused by the i r a i r c r a f t ,

\A1 Belgium i s a party t o the Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Aircraft t o

Third 'Parties on the Surface which provides for a system of compylsory insurance i n respect of damage mused by foreign a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the smfacs, (See L a w of 11 September 1936 a~provinn the Internationa3, Convention f o r the Unification of Certain Rules re la t ing t o the Precautionarg Attachment of Aircraft and--the Internat ional Convention f o r the Unification of Certain Rules r e l a t ing t o Damage Caused by Aircraft t o Third Par t ies on t h ~ Surface.

(2) Brazil: Brazilian B i r Code, k r t i c l e 103, ( 3 ) w., Art. 104. (4) Ibido, a r t , 105, (5) Ibid, , Art. 106.

Document no I X Annex II

Such r i s k s a r e t o be insured i n o ~ d e r t o guarantee compensation i n the amount of ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 (one m A l l i on Cruzeiros) ($54,054~10 US) f o r each accident, without prejudice t o provisions of the Bra t i l i an A i r Code which con- s ide r unlimited l i a b i l i t y and, consequently, the operator i s l i a b l e t o pay an equitable compensation f o r the damsge, The above amount of ~ ~ ~ $ 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 (one lPlfllion ~ r u s e f s o s ) is fixed f o r the pwposa of insurance, but it does not limit the l i a b i l i t y of the opwator t o t h a t amount, I n case a foreign operator would prefer t o cover these r i sks wfth foreign insurers,, the only requirement t o be lilade is tha t a clause be included in the relevant policy t o &&rantee ef ther that f t 1s sub3 e c t t o the p~o-vPsPbns of the BTa%fbS.wn BLix Coae or that the fnsuranee covers m amount, whfch conve~ted 'into Bra%flian currency, could correspond t o the mini mum of CR,$1,0a),000,00 (one rafllf on Cruzeiros) ,

Although foreign a i r c r a f t operators entering Brazil ian t e r r i t o r y my choose t o inawe with either B~aaf l fan or foreign fnsusers, these operators are , i n any case, required t o submit the proof of the inswance t o the Civ i l Aeranautf c Directorate (11,

A person who is en t i t l ed t o compensation fo r damage has the r igh t , within the maximum amounts which m y properly be payabl t o him, t o a v a i l

729 himself of the guarantee furnished by the person l i a b l e ,

Brazi l is a par ty t o the Rome Convention on Damge Caused by Aircraf t t o Third Pa r t i e s on the Surface,

There is a t present no nat ional l eg i s l a t i on i n Burma compelling a i r - c r a f t operators t o insure against t h i rd par ty r i sks , A 1 1 operators i n Burma have voluntar i ly insured against them, However, according t o the informatPon received, such a l eg i s l a t i on i s under considerationo

Canada - The Afr Transport Board of Canada has jur isdict ion i n regard t o commercial

a i r services, It requires a i r ca r r i e r s t o provide and maintain l i a b i l i t y inreurance a s a condition precedent t o the granting of both domestic and foreign l icences or permits, This is, of course, i n addit ion t o any insurance which m y be carr ied by the a i r ca r r i e r f o r the protection of his own property and contractual obligations, The maximum amount of th i rd party l i a b i l i t y insurance t o be carr ied is a matter for determination by each l icensee having i n mind the circumstances of the proposed operations, but the Board w i l l , from time t o t i m e , e s tab l i sh minimum requirements, The present minimum coverages fixed by the Board a re a s follows(3)s0

Publ i c I f ab i l i t y : Mhimum one person $20,000 Mini mum t o t a l per aircrcaf t 409000

Property d a m p : Minimum per a i r c r a f t per accident 5 9 000

A t the present time, there i s not any governmental requirement i n regard t o foreign commercial a i ~ ca r r i e r s exercising the f i r s t two freedoms or i n regard t o pr ivate operators e i t h e r domestic or foreign,

(1) Brazil: Brazil ian A i r Code, Art ic le 107, (2) Ibid., A r t , 108, (3) Canada: A i r Transport Board General Order No, 3/51 (24 MY 1951).

Document no XI h e x ZI

Czechoslovakia

The la test , 5.iiror.ma.ition o.vai ' ld~lo t o t,he Oxganizntion f s based on the A t r Navigation Law oi 3925, and them .is a po:;sibility that this legislat 'ion may have been supsrseded, However, the following information taken from the 1925 Law may s t i l l be of in te res t :

Possesso~s cf a i r c r a f t , before delivery of a licence, and a d a t i o n companies, befors ciol.9very of a concassion, have to pruve9 t o ghaarantse eom- pensation due t o th i rd persons under that t,atr, t ha t they a re insured against damage resul t ing from tho opnration of the a l r c r e f t or tha t they have deposited with the Minister of Peihlfc Works by way of guarantee axl eunoeuat i n bonds o r a bank guarantee ( l),

Denmark

According t o the information received i n reply t o the most recent inquiry, i n pursuance of current Danish l eg i s l a t ion an a i r c r a f t operator is l i a b l e t o e f fec t insurance with an approved insurance company against claims f o r compensation which might be s e t up against himself or the user of the a i r c r a f t f o r damage caused by h i s a i r c r a f t t o th i rd pa r t i e s on the surface within Danish t e r r i to ry ,

The Mlnfstry of Public Works, t o whom the Civ i l Aviation Administra- t i o n i s responsible, may decide t h a t the a i r c r a f t operator instead of effect ing insurance s h a l l give other adequate securfty.

I f foreign a i r c r a f t a re used i n a i r transport within Danish t e r r i to ry , it i s up t o said 1vlir.listry t o decide whether insurance s h a l l be effected or other securi ty given,

(Note: From t h i s statenlent it i s not cer ta in whether, i n practice, insurance i s required of foreign operators, although i n answer t o the e a s l i e r inquiry it was s ta ted tha t Denmark had, up %ill t h a t time, not required foreign operators t o carry insu~ance , although f t had a l e g a l pight t o make the requf~enent , )

Dominican Republic

The current national leg is la t ion does not specifically ccmpel an operator t o insure against the r i s k s of damage by h i s a i r c r a f t t o th i rd pa r t i e s on the surface, However, accordiaq; t o information received, .the general trend of leg is la t ion of the Dominican Republic i n c i v i l l i a b i l i t y matters makes t h i s course of act ion advisable and, a s a resu l t , the only a i r l i n e operating i n the country has been insuring such r i sks ever since i t s inauguration,

Although Egypt requires insurance or other securi ty of operatom no information i s available as t o the l eg i s l a t ive basis f o r the r,equirement,

Fi nla nd

Accorc?.ing t o Finnish leg is la t ion , insurance against t he r i sks of damage by the a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the surface i s not compulsory,

Czechoslovakia: A i r Navigation Law, C July ~ ~ 2 5 , Art. 38(1).

Document n" I% Annex I1

France

There i s no lega l o r regulatory provision i n France which requires o p r a t o r s t o be insured against &wage caused by their a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t iee on the surface. I n practice, the insurance carried by owners o r operators of a i r c r a f t generally has a ce i l ing of gw.~*antee which is the same a s tha t estab- l ished by the Mexico City draft Convention on damage caused by foreign a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the surface (f oo lO,OQO,OOO gold francs - $&3,36O9OQ US).

Gua tern&

Every public transport enterprise, whather foreign or national, which operates i n the country i s obligsd 'to, insure i t s l i a b i l i t y towards th i rd par t ies , up t o a t l e a s t the maximum amounts established by the C i v i l Aviation Law, The policies a r e t o be entered i n t o with insurance companies recognized as being solvent.(l) Insurance i n the case of darnage o r injury caused i n Guatemalan t e r r i t o r y t o persons o r specif ic owners, by f a l l i n g a i r c ra f t , forced landing, objects f a l l i n g or thrown from a i r c r a f t is t o be i n the amount of 5,000 Quetzals ($5,000.00 US) per person, not t o exceed a , t o 1 of 50,000 Quetzals ($50,000.00 IKi) 7 i n respect of persons and property together, (2

This S ta t e is a party t o the Rome Convention on Damage Caused by Aircraft t o Third Part ies on the Surface, out it i s not known whethersit applies the insurance and guarantee provisions of t h a t Conventiono

No i s s u a n c e or other form of, s w a i t y is required of foreign a i r c r a f t c a a i e p s o r opera ton , How6 vex, t 4 D i CihJJleT of an a i r c r a f t Whtch i s regis tered and operated i n Iceland mus t take out insurance i n respect of damage caused t o persons or property outside the a i r c ra f t , The Ministry of Communications determines the maximtm amount c'S e 9 a $ o ~ Which m y be recovered and which must be included i? t the3 iii5ixcfi,~lw

These sums must, however, not be i n excess of 100,000 kroner ($6,140,36 US) i n case of physical injury and not i n excess of 10,000 kroner ($614,03 US) i n case of damage t o property,

The insurance oompany fa under a duty t o not i fy the Ministry of the expiration of the period covered by the insurance and the insurance agreement must contain a s t ipula t ion t o tha t effect ,

It must a l so be provided i n the agreement tha t the insurance colhpany i s l i a b l e f o r in ju r i e s and damage occurring within two montha a f t e r the receipt by the Ministry of a not i f icat ion t h a t the period of insurance has expired, i f the a i r c r a f t has not durin'g tha t period been removed from the reg is te r ,

The Ministry of Cornmunicationa may determine t h a t the owner of the a i r - c r a f t may, i n l i e u of insu~anee , place other secupities against eventual claims.

(1) Guatemala: Decree Noo 563 o f IJatlonal C o ~ g ~ s s , Civf 1 Aviation Law, March 1949, A r t , 109,

(2) m,, A r t , 105,

Where, a s roqwiroil by lawi n r;on-~lcol&r~dic ownor i s ropl.uced by an Icelanclic posseasor, i f the uf rcraft i a t o be oporatel f o r a period i n excess of three months, the abovu references $0 tho owner a re t o be considered a s references t o t h e possessor,

I n cer ta in cases, a i rcraf t not owned by Icelandic ci t izens, but whhh operate i n Iceland, mey be r e q d r e d t o take out insurance or t o post s e c u ~ i t i e s . I n such cases the owner may place other secur i t ies i n l i e u of i m a n c e ( L ) ,

India - There i s no Indian law which prescribes compulsory insurance, against

r i s k s of damrzge by akr+c~af% t o th i rd pa r t i e s on the surface and no insurance i s required of a f r carriers.

There are no lawe or regulations i n I raq requiring a i r c r a f t operators t o insure t h e i r a i r c r a f t with I r a q i o r foreign insurance c ~ ~ ~ p a m % s s , except t h a t t h e establishment of a foreign insurance rvompaglgr i n the country w i l l have t o be i n weordame with the Insurance Conapaaes Act.

Insurance companies established under the Act referred t o under the preceding paragraph are required t o effect; payment of losses only i n the currency of Iraq, namely the Dinar ($2,80 US),

Section 21 of the e a a provides t h a t owners of airarerft s h a l l 'be l i a b l e f o r damage caused by t h e i r aircraft, t o persons or property on land or water,

It i s l a i d down i n Section 25 of Chapter 11(~)of Par t 4 of the Act that a f t e r the date of the commencement of t h i s Chapter of the Act it shaJ-1 not be l a w f u l . f o r any person t o f l y or cause or permit any other person t o fly an a i r c r a f t unless there i s i n force i n r e l a t ion t o the f lying of such a i r c r a f t a policy of insurance issued by an approved a i r c r a f t insurer which subject t o azq conditions or r e s t r i c t ions specified therein insures the ownor of such a i r c r a f t agaf nst a11 15 abi l i t y which he may incur i n respect of 10s s or d m g e cause~d%o persons or property on land or water i n Ireland o r by any person i n or m y a r t i c l e o r person fa l l fng from the a i r c r a f t , while i n f l i g h t , taking off or l audhg ,

An order has not ye t been made by the Minister f o r Industry and Commerce pursuant .to Section 22 of the 1936 A c t providing f a r the bringing i n t o operation of Chapter I1 of Par t 4 of the Act.

Chapter I11 of the Act contains provision fo r gimng ef fec t t o the Rome Convention on the making of an appropriate order of" the, ESreeutfve Council, No auch order has ye t been made,

73 I C S ~ ~ ~ I : The A i r ~ m f f i ~ L ~ V . NO. 32 (19291, Section 34. (2) Enti t led flSurviml of causes of act ion ar i s ing out of l i a b i l i t y i n respect of

diamige caused by a i rc raf i t o persons and property on Sand and water, l imi ta t ion of such l i a b i l i t y and compulsory insurance by owners of a i r c r a f t a g d n s t such l i a b i l i t y , "

I s r a e l

There i s a t ?resent no leg is la t ion i n I s r a e l making it compulsory fo r a,n a i r c r a f t operator t o insure against the r i s k s of damage t o th i rd par t ies on the surface.

I t a l y

Obligation t o insure

An a i r c r a f t i s not allowed t o f l y if it i s not insured f o r damage caused t o th i rd par t ies on the surface with an i s ance compaw authorized fo r t h i s purpose by the PEnistry of Aeronautics ?ly

Amount of compensation

The global compensation due by an operator i n respect of damage caused t o th i rd pa r t i e s on the surface i s limited f o r each accident t o an amount of 300 l i r e ($0.4875 US apprax, ) per k-g, of all-up weight of the a i r c r a f t i n accordance with the statements on the airworthiness cer t i f ica te . When the amount established on the basis of the weight of the a i r c r a f t i s l e s s than 750,000 l i r e ($1,218,75 US approx,) o r above 2,500,000 l i r e (&,062,50 US approx,), the operator i s l i a b l e up t o those amounts. I f the damage i s caused by a tou r i s t a i r c r a f t or a l i de r , the

72) minimum limit i s reduced t o 300,000 l i r e ($487e50 U S approx. ) . Note: The U n i t s of l i a b i l i t y established by the Code i n 194l -

were related t o the currency un i t and maxim figures a~pea r ing i n the Rome Convention. I n order t o adjust the figures, account should be taken of the depreciated value of the l i r a which i n 1941 was approximately equivalent t o the Pofncard franc, I n practice, however, a i r c r a f t operators e f f ec t insurance fo r sums substantially i n excess of those establ9shed i n the Navigation Code.)

Appropriation t o credi tors

Persons en t i t l ed t o claim for damage t o persons may claim within the maximum l i m i t of 250,000 l i r a per person, 2/3 of the t o t a l amount of compensation fo r which the operator i s l iab le ; those en t i t l ed t o claim f o r damage caused t o property may claim the remainder of the t o t a l sum. q

I f the t o t a l amount due for damage caused t o property i s lower than the said th i rd , claims i n respect of damage t o persons sha l l be met out 'out of the remainder within the individual l i m i t mentioned above. Likewise, i f the t o t a l amount assigned f o r compensation of damage t o persons is lower than the above mentioned 2/3, claimo fo r damage t o property sha l l be covered from the balance (3 1.

(1) I ta ly: Navigation Code, 21 April 1942, Article 798. (2) so, ~ r t . 967. (3) Ibid., A r t . 968.

P r o ~ o r t i o n a l redu.ction of claims

Special pov i s ions govern the proportional reduction of claims, when the t o t s 1 amount o compensation f o r a s ing le accident exceeds the maximum l i m i t f contenplated(l .

Pr io r i t y of claims, e t c ,

Finally, other spec i f ic rules(2) dea l with the order of p r io r i t y of claims, the exclusion of Iin5.tations of l i a b i l i t y and l imita t ions of actions.

Notice of l imi t s of insurance

I n the case of insurance f o r damage t o thi rd par t ies on the surface, the insurer should remit t o the operator, besides the policy, a notice containing the limits of the insurance, I n the case of a difference, the statements of the notice eneorsed by the Ministry of Aeronautics take precedence over the statements of the insur n e contract i n respect of the period and t e r r i t o r i a l

837 extent of the insurance

Surf ace damage caused by co l l i s ion

The insurer i s l i a b l e fo r damage suffered by third pa r t i e s on the surface even following a cn l l i s ion (4 ) ,

Damage excluded

The insurer i s not responsible f o r damage occurring outside the t e r r i t o r i a l l i m i t s s e t out i n the notice of insurance, except when these E m i t s have been passed due t o force ma-ieure, assistance o r salvage o r a l so due t o an e r ro r i n pi lot ing, operation o r navigation,

Likewise, the insurer i s not responsible f o r demage which i s the d i r e c t consequence of in te rna t iona l armed conf l i c t o r c i v i l disturbance.

The insurance does not cover damage due t o the w i l f u l misconduct o r gross negligence of the operator o r of h i s servants o r agents, except,in the case of wilful misconduct o r gross negl i gence of the servants o r agents, i f the dmage i s due t o e r ro r s i n piloting, operation o r navi t ion , o r if the 48 operator has taken the necessary measures t o avoid i t (

Subst i tut ion of person f o r insured e'perator

f f the operator who took out the insurance i s replaced the insurance continues i n respect of the new operator.

The preceding operator and the operator succeedfng him must give the i n s w e r immediate notice of the change. On receipt of the notice the insurer can, within two weeks, cancel the contract on giving f i f t e e n daysa notice,

- Ti ) I t a l y : Navigation Code, 22 April 1942, Art ic le 969. (2) u,, Arts, 969-973. (3) Ib id , , A r t , 1010, (4) Ibid., Art, 1011, The global compensation Clue by the operator i n the case

of co l l i s ions i s the same as the f igures given above where no co l l i s ion i s involved,

(5) Ibid , , A r t . 1012,

The new operator has the same f i g h t boginning with the day of the change, The insurer and the new operator, who decides on cancellation, mst immediately not i fy the Ministry of Aeronautics t o t h a t effect.

I n the absence of a notice t o the insurer, the insurance continues i n respect of the new operator, but the l a t t e r i s bound joint ly and severally with the preceding operator t o pay by way of penalty one th i rd of the agreed premium, when it i s not shown that the insurer, having had knowledge of the change, d id not cancel the contract within the period and subject t o the procedure established above, ( 1 )

Extension of insurance expirinp during a t r i g

If the insurance expires while the a i r c r a f t i s on a t r i p it is automatically prolonged up t o the end of the landing manoeuvre8 a t the.place of destination, but the operator must pay a s pplementary premium proportionate t o the prenirrm established by the contract. ( 2 r

R y a g a i n s t the insurer

The th i rd party suffering damage has a r igh t of d i r e c t action against the insurer f o r compensation i n respect of the damage suffered,

The insurer cannot invoke against the th i rd party any cause of cancellation o r nu l l i t y of contract with retroact ive effect.

In every other case of cancellation of contract, the insurer is bound vis-&-vis the t h i r d party for accidents oocuring up t o the time when the notice of insurance has come t o the Ministry of Aeronautics, such time not t o exceed, however, f i f t een days from the day when the insurer not i f ied the Ministry of the cancellationo

Moreover, the insurer i s bound t o compensate th i rd par t ies i n the case where the damage should be considered excluded because of wilful misconduct o r gross negligence of the operator o r of h i s servants or agents a s indicated i n the th l rd paragraph i n heading 4.

I n addition t o the defences s e t out i n the preceding paragraphs, the insurer can r a i s e against t h i r d par t ies a l l the defences which can be raised against the rator , a s well a s those which the operator can railse against the victim, ?Sf

Riaht of act ion of the insurer

In the cases covered by the l a s t three paragraphs, the insum has a right of recourse against the operator f o r the sum paid t o the t h i r d partyo

R e s p o n s i b i l i t ~ of insurer i n case of co l l i s ion

The insurer i s responsible f o r amounts due by the operator fo r damage caused by an a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t as the consequence, of a co l l i s ion with another a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t or with a vessel i n movement a s well as, without there being a physical col l ia ion, for damage caused by the displacement of a i r or another analogous cause, This rule , however, i s subject t o cer ta id@ept im

(1) 1 : -, 21 April 194.2, Art.1013. (2) Ibid, , A r t , 1014 (3) Ibid., A r t o 1015 (4) we, A r t . 1016

The ir.mwss a l so bears the expenses incurred by the operator i n defendin himself, with the consent of the insurer, against t he claims of th i rd par t ies , f l )

In these cases the insurer i s not r s onaible f o r damage caused by the a i r c r a f t t o t h i r d par t ies on the surface, b'l

Period of r i s k

The r i s k commences a t the be inning of the f l i g h t manoeuvres and ends a t the end of the landing rnanoeuvses. (3)

The owners o r possessors of a i r c r a f t must guarantee the payment of compensation f a l l i n g on them, by means of a contraot of insurance with a duly authorized ins t i tu t ion , o r a deposit with the Macional Financiers, Ltd., i n the amount of the maximum respective I f a b i l i t y , I n the case of owners or possessors of two o r more a i r c r a f t , the insurance o r deposit w i l l be doubled, no matter how many a i r c r a f t a r e being operated,

Compensation payable by the owner o r possessor of an a i r c r a f t l i a b l e fo r damage caused t o t h i r d par t ies and property on the surface must not exceed the maximum limit corresponding t o each type of a i r c r a f t , i n accordance with the following table:

Airerare up t o 5,000 kgs gross weight, the amount of 60,000 pesos ($ 6,936,42 US) 11 20,000 I' ~t II A 150,000 " ($17,3LJo05 US) ID I' Lk0,C00 $1 n 11 11300,000 1 ( $ 3 4 , 6 8 2 , 1 0 ~ ~ ) fl of more

than 40,000 I t 11 II fl 600,000 n ($69,364,20 US)

The insurance or deposit a r e t o be constituted within f i f t e e n daye following the date of the obtaining of the concession, permit o r reg is t ra t iono

The Secre tar ia t of Communications determinesin w h a t cases foreign operators of pr ivate a i r c r a f t must f u l f i l t h f s obligationo

The guarantee must be maintained during the t e r n of the concession, permit or reg is t ra t iono

The persons and bodies not guaran e ing payment of compensation lose the benefi t of the l imi ta t ion of l i a b i l f ty, !47

docording t o the reply t o the most recent inquiry, under the national legis lat ion, an operator i s not d e r an obligation t o e f f ec t an insurance against the risk of hasage caused by hLs aircraft to third parties on the surface.

However, i n reply to the ear1i.w inquiry, it was stated that (I) u i rc ra f t operators and charter companies are lrequfred t o be insured against third party risks but no specifications a re rnade as t o the amounts covered, It i s expected, however, t ha t these comespon6 with the amounts mentioned i n the Rome Convention not r a t i f i ed by tho Netherlands; and (2) t h a t the Netherlands Goverment does not require foreign a i re raf% operators entering i t s t e r r i t o r y t o insure with insurers quaUfied t o transact business i n the Netherlands Kingdom,

New Zealand

New Zealand leg is la t ion does not compel an a i r c r a f t operator t o insure against the r i sks of damage by h i s a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the surface,

Nicaragua requires foreign and national a i r ca r r i e r s t o be suf f ic ien t ly insured with any essent ia l ly sound anr3 absolutely responsible insurance company against a l l damago t h a t can happen t o persons and property i n aviation operations,

According t o the reply -to the most recent inquiry, the pertinent provision of the Norwegian Air Navigation Act does not make insurance against the r i sks of damage by a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the surface campulsory, brut leaves it t o the discrotion of the Administration t o require sueh insurance t o be effected by operators, The general practice is appUed that a l l commercial operators an6 f lying schools a re required t o w a n g e f o r insurance coveri ng damage up t o Nop~~egian kr., 500,000 ($70,000 US),

I n a reply to the e a r l i e r inquiry it was s tated t h a t i n compliance with the Norwegian A i r Navigation A C ~ ( P ' the Ministry of Transport and C o m i c a t i o n i s authorized a t i t s Cisuretion t o impose on a l l a i r c r a f t operators cer ta in insurance reqxiremnts, such requirements being imposed only on national a i r c ~ a f t ,

Pakistan

There i s no leg is la t ion i n t h i s country t o compel an operator t o insure aga.fnst r f sk of damage by h i s a i r c r a f t t o th i rd par t ies on the surface.

( l ) Horway: Law on A i r Navigation, 7 December 1923, Art ic le 40,

Document no 11 Annex I1

Re~ub l i c of the P h i U p ~ i n e s

The Government of this country does not require foreign a i r c r a f t operators entering Philippine t e r r i to ry t o car ry any insurance,

According t o Art ic le 203 of Decree No, 20062 of October 25th. 1930, Regulations on A i r Navi~at ion, insurance against the r i sks of a i r navigation w i l l be applied subject t o the general p r ~ v i s f o n s of the Conunercial Code and other in te rna l o r internat ional leg is la t ion on insurance accepted by the Portuguese Stlabe o

Spain (1)

Insurance covering danage caused by a i r c ra f t t o third par t ies on the surface i s regulated so a s t o take i n t o account the par t icu lar nature of persons o r property, subject t o the basic principles of applicable national standards and of the principles contained i n the Rome Convention (1933) and of the Brussels ProLocol (1938). Insurance i n respect of danage to third par t ies on the surface i s t o be established independently of passenger insurance, Foreign a i r c r a f t f ly ing i n national t e r r i to ry must show tha t they have insured t h i r d party r i sks , A deposit o r bond may be substi tuted f o r such insurance, The insurance contract must consist of the policy signed by the insurer and the insured,

Sweden

According t o the reply t o the most recent inquiry, the valid Swedish Legislation does not compel an a i r c r a f t owner or operator to insure against the r i s k s of damage done by h i s a i r c ra f t t o third a r t i e s on the surface or t o provide any other surety i n t h i s connection,(27 However, the question of the des i r ab i l i t y of introducing such leg is la t ion has been raised,

According t o the reply t o the e a r l i e r inquiry, it would appear t h a t there i s compulsory insurance f o r cer tain commercial operators; tne indemnity f o r personal in ju r i e s not to exceed 50,000 Sw, crowns ($9,665,20 US, approx,) per head o r a t o t a l of 150,000 Sw, crowns ($28,995.60 US, approx,) per accident or 20, WO Sw. crowns ($3,866.08 US, approx.) f o r property damage i n an accident. (3)

Switzerland

A, Swiss Aircraft

Principle, m%%m of guarantee and proof

Every operator of an a i r c r a f t registered i n the Swiss reg is te r must cover his l i a b i l i t y i n respect of third par t ies on the surface by using one of the following forms of guarantees

(a) Insurance against c i v i l l i a b i l i t y with a insurance company authorized t o t ransact such business i n Switzerland fiote: The insurance s h a l l also cover the l i a b i l i t y of persons designated by the operator t o f l y the air- c r a f t or perform other dut ies on board, f o r damage caused t o third par t ies i n the exercise of the i r professional dut ies while i n the employ of the operatog;

I__

(1) Spanish Law of the Bases f o r the Draftiraa of an A i r Code, adopted by the Cortes on 27 December 1947,

(2) See, however, Royal Proclamation of 20 April 1928 (NO, 85), Section 37, which contemplates the promulgation of detailed regulations Zn connection with any undertaking of Sweden, pursuant t o agreement with a foreign country, t o insure i t s a i r c r a f t i n respect of damage caused t o third parties,

(3)See General Prwisions f o r Commercial Aviation Other Than Scheduled Services, 29 April 1944, Sections 15-17,

Docuclsut no I1 Annex I1

(b) %pos i t of r e a l s e c u r i t i e s which are r ead i l y convert ible, with a public fund o r a bank authorized by the Federal A i r Office;

(e) Jo in t and severa l guarantee of a bank authorized by the Federal A i r Office o r by an insurance company authorized t o t ransact such business i n Switzerland.

The secur i ty and guarantee s h a l l be b?ought up t o t h e i r f u l l value a s soon as t he amounts they represent a r e apt t o be diminished by the amount of a compensation.

Every ap l i c a n t f o r an operating c e r t i f i c a t e must f u rn i sh proof of such guaranteefl) , The Confederation nd cantons ere not required to fu rn i sh a guarantee f o r t h e i r a i r c r a f t f 2 ) .

Amount of the guarantee

The r i g h t of t h i rd p a r t i e s t o compnsation i n respect of c i v i l l i a b i l i t y r i s e s t o o t l e a s t 80,000 f rancs f o r each person k i l l e d o r injured.

On the other hand, the t o t a l guarantee of l i a b i l i t y f o r an accident i s l h i t e d t o the following amountsc

For persona z o r damage t o m o ~ e r t y f r s , f r s o

(a) Engine-powered a i r c r a f t up t o 2,000 kg, all-up weight 150,000 ($34,650 US) 60,000 ($13,860 US)

(b) Engine-powered a i r c r a f t having an a l l -up weight from 2000 t o 6000 kg. 250,000 ($69,300 US) 120,000 ($27,720 US)

( c ) Engine-powered a i r c r a . f t of more than 6000 kg, a l l -up weight 350,000 ($80,850 US) 170,000 ($39,270 US)

( d ) Gliders 150,000 ($34,650 US) 30,000 (a 6,930 US)

(e ) Free balloons 150,000 ($349650 US) 60,000 ($139860 us)

( f ) Captive Wens and k i t e s 150,000 ($34,650 US) 60,000 ($13,860 US) (3)

I n ce r t a in coses such as, the carr iage of dangerous goods(4) ,the E$arnUg of a s p x i a l author izat ion f o r throwing o r e c t s t o f a l l from a i r - c r a f t i n f l i gh t (5 ) ; f l i g h t s involving , t h e Federal ~ i r Office can require t h c t the operator guarantee i n respect of h i s c i v i l l i a b i l i t y towards th i rd pa r t i e so

(1 ) Federal Law on Air ~ g v G t i o n , 21 December 1948, Ar t ic les 70-71 and Regulations Imp&mentin:: t ho L a w on A i r Navigationp 5 June 1950, Ar t ic les 171-173. - - -

(2 ) Federal I g w on Air Npiaa t ion , 21 December 1948, A r t , 72. (3) Reaulatioi~s~m_pl.crncntina the Law on A i r Navigation, 5 June 1950, A r t . 174. (4) _Ibid., A r t , la, (5) ma, Arts, 126-127, (6 ) I_bid,, Art, 160,

Docwnent nC 11. Annex. IT

Tho i ~ l o u r m u u eontract must pr'ovicls t h a t , i n eaoa tha aporatos ia eha:lgsd during t h p s ~ i n d of" the contm.e%, t e claimo wh3.d.h r d & t bo brought a s i n a t tha new operatop are also coveredo d

The Iaw c o n t ~ ~ i n s spec%nl prs-rislons c ncernfng fnawance i n the case of the t r e n ~ f c r of the operating csrtiflcate. ( 23

The paran toe must cover, up to the limits l a id down above, all the olaim of third parties on the surfhee against the operator and poreonno1 on board whiah d g % be brought in accordlance with the provisfona of the Air Navigation Lwo ?3 )

The in~turanea contract nuat contain the following provieions:

(a) If the e o n t ~ ~ c t e1xpI~ro~ while ths afmmf"t, i s i n flight the lmurer ~emafna sbffgatsd toward8 the third parties until the next lauang whfah p m $ t a an official ves~ifieatfon of the papers on board, but it dos~s not m d . n i n form longer than a MWX%LI1\mm of 24 howso

Tho ~p~rator can require of the insurer P;b% p~p'lll~ent of kt98 comp(3naation be ~]rado,to $he third partyp withut prtsjudioe to eventw1 r E & t s of ~ e c o w s e , even it" tihe ehP~ns of t h e t h i ~ d party against the operator exeeed those of the o p r a k o r agzplinwt t he Insurer mdeit the term of the fnsumnee contraeto

The t h i rd pa r ty m f P w i n $ damgo cannot nv#,aJ. himaelf of any c1aJ.m direct ly against the insursr , but he possesses, in rezlpoct of tlw mxount of damages due o M m , a privilege i n respect of the claims of the opcralor against t h e insurero h)

The Fedem?. Air Office s ta te8 i n the operating c e r t i f i c a t e o~ i n a speefal insurance e e r t l f l e n t e that c i v i l l i a b i l i t y fo r th i rd par t ies is coveredo

indicates the ntirture, tha amount and extant of tho securi ty

Thwe a r e d i f fe rent amounts of guarantees required i n the case of special dmonstrations such a s air shows, parachute jumps acrobatics on board a i re raf t, aerobntf cs, advertising and propaganda f l ights . ( 3 )

The obligation t o furnish a guarantee for foreign a i r o r a f t is governed by internat ional agreements, In the absence of such agreements, the Federal A i r Office can e the use of Swiss airspace subjeat t o the pr ior fu~n iah ing of a guarantee., fit

If a company allowed t o issue insurance against c iv i l Liabi l i ty , i n Switzerland, s t a t e s that it i s taking over the coverage of c l a i m of sfvfl l i a b i l i t y which might be brought against the operator and personnel on hoard foreign a i r c r a f t , such a declaration is accepted a s being a proof of guaranteeo

The Fedsml Air Office decides i n eaoh case c ncerning the pecog- nf t ion of aecuri t iea cons%f&uted outside the countryo ( 59

Up t o the prusent , Switzerland haa required a guarantee of the civil l i a b i l i t y incurred by f i ~ e i g n a i r c r a f t only i f such a i r c r a f t a re engaged i n scheduled a i r t r a f f i c , and, i n practice, t o avoid d i f f i cu l ty , the Swiss Government recognizes insurance contraobd with foreign companies not holding a eoncesafon i n Switzerland if those companies are recognized by t h e i r S ta te of domi.cfle, and i f that Sta te extends reefproeal treatment t o S d e s airerraft,

(1) JJ&& , A r t . 1810 (2) wo, A r t , 182. (3) mo, Arts 183-184. (4) % & x " R ~ Law on Air Nav&atfon, 21 December 1948, A r t , 73 and @ ~ u l a t l o n s

Im~lementhg the ];;?!J on Air Nnviaatfon, 5 June 1950, A r t , 1850 ( 5 ) ~ ~ g J & r n e v t ~ t h e Iaw on A l r Navi~at iog, 5 June 1950, A r t . 186,

Document no 11 Annex I1

Union of South Africa

C iv i l a i r services -on No, requires th i rd party insurance i n respect of a i r c a r r i e r s as defined i n Section 1 of the -ices Act (Act No. 51 of l94q), tha t is, not i n respect of private f l i g h t s not f o r reward. Regulation 13(b) reads as follows:

13. The claims of the nature or c l a s s against which and the xninimum sums o r extent t o which every licensed a i r ca r r i e r , i r respect ive of the c l a s s of a i r service provided by him, sha l l insure and keep insured, s h a l l be as follows:

(b) Third party l i a b i l i t y - &l0,000 ($28,000 US) per a i r c r a f t of a maximum permissible all-up weight of 10,000 Ib. o r l e s s and i n respect of an a i r - c r a f t of a maximum permissible all-up weight i n excess of 10,000 l b , t h i s sum s h a l l be increased by 21 ($2,80 US) f o r every 1 l b , increase i n the maximum permissible all-up weight of the a i r c r a f t up t o amaximum of 50,000 Pb, For the purpose of t h i s regulation the maximum permissible a l l -up weight" of an a i r c r a f t s h a l l be the maximum per- missibie ell-up weight specified by the c e r t i f f - cate of airworthiness applicable t o t h a t a i r c r a f t , n

United Kingdom

There i s a t present no s ta tu tory requirement f o r e i t h e r foreign o r United Kingdom operators t o insure against damage caused by a i r c r a f t to third pa r t i e s on the surface, although powers e x i s t t o 'implement the provisions of the C i v i l Aviation Act, 1942, Pa r t IV (Liab i l i ty f o r Damage, e tc , Caused by Aircraf t ) and the F i f t h ( ~ i m i ts of ~ i a b i li t y ) and Sixth (Provisions as t o Pol i c i e s of Insurance, Secur i t i es and Deposits) Schedules t o the Act by lEIinfsteria1 Order, No such order has y e t been made i n view of current in te rna t iona l discussions on these subjects; however, the reply t o the most recent inquiry indicates an in t en t iomto make the above-mentioned insurance compulsory a s soon a s possible,

If Par t IV of the Act were ap2lied persons would not be permitted t o f l y an a i r c r a f t unless there were i n f o r c e - i n r e l a t i on t o the flying:

policy of insurance issued by an authorized insurer which, subject t o any r e s t r i c t i ons o r conditions specified i n the policy, insures the owner of the a i r c r a r t against all l i a b i l i t y which he may i n c w i n respect of l o s s o r damage caused t o persons or property on land or water by, o r by any person in , or any a r t i c l e o r person f a l l i n g from the a i r c r a f t while i n f l i g h t , taking off or landing, o r

securi ty given by an authorized giver of s ecu r i t i e s , being a securi ty which consis ts of an undertaking of the giver of the secur i ty t o make good, subject to any r e s t r i c t i o n s o r conditions specified i n the security, any f a i l u r e by the owner of the a i r c r a f t t o discharge any of the above l i a b i l i t y ( l ) ,

(1) United Kingdom: C iv i l Aviation Act. 1949$ Section 43(1).

Under Per t IV provis ion is m:de f o r g iving effcct , t o t h e I;oanu Convan~ion on Daiage Caused hy Aircrvlft t o '1'l~ir.d h r t i e s on the Surfacs o r t o any provision thereof by Order i n ~ o \ i o c i l ( l ) . No such Order i n Council h m y e t been mads.

United States of Amfic_a

There i s no f e d e r c l l e g i s l a l i o n in the United S t a t e s compelling an aircraft operator t o insure aga ins t the risks of damage t o t h i r d part ies on the surface, A few S t a t e s of the United States have current laws requ i r ing a i r - c r a f t operators t o carry t h i r d party l i a b i l i t y insurance. These laws ne i the r specifically apply t o nor exempt foreign f l a g c a r r i e r s , and a s y e t t h e m has been no l i t i g a t i o n thereunder involving a fo re ign flag omrier.

Ilowever, the C i v i l Aeronautics Board r e cen t l y ennounced(2) i t s i n t en t i on t o requ i re a l l air carriers and fo re ign air oarriers t o maintain ce r t a in prescribed kinds and mfnirnum amaunts of insurance ooverage ( including public l i a b i l i t y f o r bodily injury and publics lf a b i l i t y for property danage). The suggested sohedule of minimum amelrager i s ae follovsl

Wue of aircraft

Public bodily injury liab%Lityt

Property damage a

per acciden't O Q O 100,000 -- cer t i f ied take-off .wight,

Departmen%@ of the United States Air Force and N a v have in edatena* regulations uadsr whioh they require c e r t i f i c a t e s of Pnswanoe ts be fwnfsbad by a i r carriers using a i rpor t s under the jurisdiction o f those Deparhente. These regulations are applicable to both foreign and domestic carriers witk~ut regwd to %he nationality of either the oarriers or the insurers.

3mm are some apecial provisions regarding the use of' Air Foroe basest As regards cgverage fn respect of l iability far damage cawed t o th i rd partle8

(I) ~ n ~ k e d Kingdom Civil Aviation Aat, 19L9, S e c t i w 48. (2) See 17 Federal Register, pp. 4220-4224 (7 May w2), p, 5 0 n ( 5 June 1952) and

pp. 11700-IJ7Q4 (23 Decembw 1952)

Docment no I1 -

Annex I1

on the surface, a i r c r a f t (with a few exceptions) making use of aviat ion f a c i l i t i e s a t United S ta tes A i r Force bases, whether continental o r overseas, a re required t o keep i n force a t t h e i r own cost and expense the following insurance:

Insurance - Limit

Public Bodily Injury $50,000. any one person i h any one accident and, subject t o t h a t limit f o r each person, $5OO,OOO. i n any one accident.

Public Property Damage L iab i l i t y $500,000, f o r each accident.

I n the case of the use of United S ta tes A i r Force bases overseas, by non- commercial, non-revenue producing, pr ivately owned and operated a i r c r a f t weighing l e s s than 12,500 pounds ce r t i f i ca t ed maximum gross operating weight, while the Public Bodily Injury coverage w i l l be the same as above, the l i m i t of Public Property Damage Liab i l i ty w i l l be a t l e a s t $150,000 f o r each accident(1).

There a re a lso spec ia l provisions f o r the Canal Zone whereby the Governor may require any a i r c a r r i e r o r foreign a i r ca r r i e r , a s a condition of entry i n t o the Canal Zone Military Airspace Reservation, t o furnish a bond, i n such amount and containing such terms as may be sa t i s fac tory t o the hve rno r , o r i n l i e u thereof t o deposit cash, conditioned upon the f u l l sa t i s fac t ion of all lawful judgments rendered against such a i r ca r r i e r o r foreign air c a r r i e r as a r e s u l t of operations in to , within, o r from the Canal Zone Mili tary Airspace ~ese rva t ion (2 ) .

Insurance f o r damage t o thi rd par t ies and property outside the a i r c r a f t i s a lso compulsory but cannot be required t o exceed an overal l amount greater than 100,000 pesos ($38,500 US).

Aviation companies must place the insurance with the S ta te Insurance Bank, For the above purposes, aeronautical companies which a re s ta ted by the

o be of public i n t e r e s t , are considered t o be the same as commercial

Aviation com~anfes have t o give proof of the eldstence of insurance t o the competent body<5b, and both the existence of the insurance and the date of i t s maturity w i l l be noted i n the national regf s t e r of aircraf%(6),

United S ta t e s t De partme --- Defence, Chapter V I I - : - Continental A i r Force 822,U and Pa r t 823 -

- n t of the A i r Force Eegulations, T i t l e 32 - Nation

Department of the A i r Force2 Par t 822 - Use of Bases by Other than A i r Force Aircraft1 Section Use of United S ta t e s Air Force Bases Overseas by

~ o r e i g n ) , Section 823* 5 Civ i l Ai rc ra f t (~omes t i c o r C a n a l Zone-Air Re~ul.at&ns, T i t l e 35 - P mama Canal, Chapter I - - Canal I--a- -- Zone R e w l a t i l s , Par t 5 - A i r Navigation, Section 5,22,

--** -<--

Uruguay i s not a member of ICAO. (4) Uruguay: Code of Aeronautical Lenislation, 1942, Art ic le 10, (5) _Ibid,, A r t , 112. ( 6 ) Ibid, , A r t , 113,

MI-thin f if i ;ecn day:; c1.i' -the :?;.;;:pl..rat;f on of tho ~,oL-Ecy, proof of the existencu of n nc?w policy i1il.1 have t.o be sst::k~l3.shod i n tho m t i o n ~ l r c g i s t e r of a i rc ra f t a:nd the n,on-,co.mpl.innce with th:l..s rsr4uirexlent w i l l b r ing i b o u t , t h e immediul;e canceliatf on of the ce r t j . f i ca te cf n i r w o r t ~ n o i : s ( l ) ,

Note: It i s qo t c l ea r from the information avaiJ.ablo - whe.ther the insu.ranc e pro-~f sicins apply t o foref gn as well. as ,t;o na t&onnl operators ,

The C i v i l Aviation Law and r e l a t ed Regulations do not impse upon a i r c a r r f e s whether domestic or foreign, the obl iga t ion t o

$2) c a r r y insurance

(1) Uruguay: $islation, 1942, Art ic le Ul+. (2) This in fomat ion i s besed on the Law of 19440

DRAFT CONWNTION

ON DAMAGE CAUSED BY FDREIGN AIRCRAFT TO

THIRD PARTIES OM THE SURFACE

Document no 111

D I W T COWENTION

O N DANAGE CAUSED BY FOREIGN AIRCRAFT TO

THIRD PARTIES ON T I E SURFACE

CHAPTER I

P R I N C I P L E S O F L I A B I L I T Y

ARTICLE 1

(1 ) Any gerson who su f f e r s damage on t he ourface s h a l l , upon proof only t h a t t he damage was caused by an a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t o r by any person or th ing f a l l i n g therefrom, be e n t i t l e d t o compensation a s provided by t h i s Convention. Nevertheless the re s h a l l be no r i g h t t o compensation i f tho damage i s due t o noise o r the normal f l i g h t of a i r c r a f t through the a i rspace, o r i f the damage cannot be considered au a d i r e c t consequence of t h e incident giving r i s e t o the damage,

(2 For t h e purposes of t h i s Convention, an a i r c r a f t i s considered t o be i n f l i g h t from t h e moment when power i s applied f o r t he purpose of ac tua l take-off u n t i l t h e moment vhen t he landing run ends. I n the case of an a i r c r a f t l i g h t e r than a i r , t h e expression "In f l i g h t " means t h e period from t h e moment when it i s deteched from t h e surface u n t i l it becomes at tached thereto .

(1) The l i a b i l i t y f o r compensation contemplated by Ar t i c l e 1 of t h i s Con- vention s h a l l a t t a ch t o the operator of the a i r c r a f t .

(2) (a > For t h e purposes of t h i s Convention t he term floperatorn s h a l l mean the person who was making use of t he a i r c r a f t a t the time t h e damage was caused, provided t h a t i f con t ro l of t h e navigation of t h e a i r c r a f t was re ta ined by t he person from whom the r i g h t t o rmke use of t he a i r c r a f t was derived, whether d i r e c t l y o r i nd i r ec t l y , that person s h a l l be considered t he operator.

(b A person s h a l l be considered t o be making.use of an a i r c r a f t when he i s using it personally o r when his servants o r agents a r e using the a i r c r a f t on h i s behalf while performi.ng functions f o r which they were employed, whether o r not within t h e scope of t h e i r author i ty ,

(3 The reg i s te red owner of the a i r c r a f t s h a l l be presumed t o be the ope- r a t o r and s h a l l be l i a b l e a s such unless, i n t h e proceedings f o r the determination of h i e l i a b i l i t y , he proves t h a t some other person i s t he operator and procures t h e joinder of such other person i n the proceedings i f such joinder is l ega l l y possiblo under t he law of t h e court having ju r i sd ic t ion ,

If t h e perBson who w 3 s tilt o;-~c?-;! t o r a t tho t i r e the darnzge was caussd had not the exclusive r i g h t Lo LISS t h o a i r c r a f t f o r a period of a t l e a s t 30 days, d a t i n g from t h e time when such r id l i t c o ~ n ~ ~ c n c ~ d , the person from whom t h a t r i g h t was derived s h a l l be l i a b l e joinJ,ly and sevcru l ly with t h e opers tor , each of them being bound i n accordance with the p rov i s lom of t h j s Convention,

(1) A servant o r agent of an opera tor who makes use of an a i r c r a f t of h i s p r inc i7a l while performing funct ions fop which he was employed, hut outs ide t h e scope of h i s au thor i ty , s h a l l be j o i n t l y m c l s e v e r a l l y l i a b l e with thc opera tor , each of Lhem being bound i n accordance v i t h t h e provisions of t h i s Convention.

(2) Where a p x s o n makes use of an a i r c r a f t a s opera tor without t h e consent of t h e person e n t i t l e d t o i t s navigat ional con t ro l , t h e l a t t e r s h a l l 5e l i a b l e f o r damage caused on t h e surface unless he :7roTres t h a t he has taken proper measures t o prevent such use o r t h a t it was impossible: f o r h i m t o do 300 I n d e f a u l t of such proof he s h a l l be l i a b l e j o i n t l y 3nc: sevcrol ly with t h e unlawful user , each of them being bound i n accordance with t h e proviolons of t h i s Convention,

There s h a l l be no r i g h t t o compensation under t h e provisions of t h i s Convention i f t h e damage i s t h e d i r e c t consequence of armed c o n f l i c t o r c i v i l d i s - turbance, o r i f a person l i a b l e under t h e p-ovis ions of t h i s Corwention has been deprived of t h e use of t h e a i r c r a f t by a c t of public au thor i ty ,

(1) No person who would otherwise be l i a b l e under t h e provis ions of t h i s Convention s h a l l be l i a b l e f o r damage f P he proves t h a t t h e damage was caused s o l e l y tnrough the negligence o r o the r wmngful. act o r ordssfon of t h e person who s u f f e r s t h e damage, When t h e damage i s contr ibuted t o by t h e person who s u f f e r s t h e damage, the l f a b f l i t y s h a l l be reduced t o t h e e x t e n t t o which the person l i a b l e proves t h a t the damage wa6 contributed to by t h e negligence o r o the r wrongful a c t o r omission of the person who s u f f e r s t h e damage.

( 2 ) The expression flperson !rho s u f f e r s t h e danuge" f o r t h e purpose of t h i s A r t i c l e , s h a l l include t h e se rvan t s o r agents of such person, when a c t i n g within t h e scope of t h e i r a u t h o r i t y , and a person ~rhose death o r i n j u r y i s a s s e r t e d t o give r i s e t o damage,

When damage f o r which a r i g h t of compensation i s granted by A r t i c l e 1 has been caused by two o r more a i r c r a l t , the opera tors of t h e a i r c r a f t concerned shall be l i a b l e j o i n t l y and s e v e r a l l y t o t h e ex ten t t o which t h e i r ob l iga t ions a r e concur- r e n t , and f o r t h e excess each operator ;h id l be bound under t h e condit ions and l i n i - t a t i o n s governing h i s l i a b i l i t y under tliis Convention,

The persons referred t o i n paragraph ( 3 ) of Art ic le 2, Article 3 and psragraph (1) of Art ic le 4, s h a l l be en t i t l ed t o a l l defences which are available t o on operator under the provisions of th i a Convention*

Neither the operator, the owner, any peraon l i a b l e under ~ r t i c l e 3, nor t h e i r ros,pective servants or agents, s h a l l be l i a b l e f o r damage on the surface caused by an-aircraft i n f l i g h t or any person or thing f a l l i n g therefrom otherwise t h n as expressly provided i n t h i s Convention, except i n the case of such a pereon who l a gui l ty of an a c t or omission done with in ten t t o cause damage.

Nothing i n t h i s Convention s h a l l prejudice the question whether a person l i a b l e f o r damage i n accordance with t h i s Convention haa a r igh t of recourse against any other person*

E X T E N T O F L I A B I L I T Y

ARTICLE 11

(1) Subject t o the provisions of Articles 12 and 13, the l i a b i l i t y for damage contemplated i n Article 1, f o r each a i r c r a f t and incident, i n respect of a l l persons l i a b l e under this Convention, s h a l l not exceed;

(a ) 500,000 francs f o r a i r c r a f t weighing 2,000 kilograms o r leas;

(b) 1,500,000 francs f o r a i r c r a f t weighing more than 2,000 Ulograms , but not exceeding 6,000 kilograms;

( -1 1,500,000 francs, plus 125 francs per kilogram over 6,000 kilograms i n weight of the a i r c r a f t , up t o a maximum of 10,000,000 francs,,

(2) The l i a b i l i t y i n respect of lo s s of l i f e or personal injury s h a l l not exceed 300,000 francs per person k i l l e d or injured*

( 3 ) Weightn moan8 the maximum weight of the a i r c r a f t authorized by the c e r t i f i c a t e of airworthiness f o r take-off, excluding the e f f ec t of l i f t i n g gas, when used*

14) The sums mentioned In francs i n t h i s Art ic le r e fe r t o a currency uni t ocnsta t ing of 65 1/2 milligrams of gold of rni l losiml fineness 900. These sums may be conver-bed in to national currencies i n round figures*

(1) If t h e person h o suf:'crs cian~ngf? :roves t h a t it was caused by n d e l i - b e r a t e a c t or omission 01 the o p e ~ ~ a t o r , l ~ i s sercrwks o r age~ l t s , clone with i n t n n t t o cause damz~ge, t1.e .Liabil i ty of t h o opew to^ s h n l l be unlimited, unless such a c t o r omission w ? s donc t ~ i t l ! the ob jec t of 3voidiilg g r e a t e r damage, o r unless , i n t h e case of an a c t o r oinission of t h e servants (31- agents concerned9 t h e opera tor proves t h a t i t was done without h i s cxyxss au thor i ty ,

(2 I f R person wrun,-fully takes and m k e s use of an a i r c r a f t without t h e consent of t h e 1,erson e n t i t l e d t o use it, his l i a b i l i t y s h a l l be un l in i t ed ,

ARTICLE 12 -...--*-

( I ) Whenever, iinder t h e provisions of A r t i c l e 3 o r of A r t i c l e I, , two o r more persons a r e j o i n t l y and severa l ly l i a b l e f o r damage, o r a r e g i s t e r e d owner who was not t h e opera tor i s made l i a b l e a s such, as provided i n pars,araph ( 3 ) of A r t i c l e 2, t h e persons who s u f f e r daniage s h a l l not be e n t i t l e d t o compensation g r e a t e r than t h e h ighes t s i n g l e indemnity recoverable under A r t i c l e 11,

(2) When t h e provisions of A r t i c l s 7 a r e app l i cab le , t h e yerson who s u f f e r s t h e damage s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o be cor;mensater.l u- t o t h e agp-egste of t h e l i r r i t s app l i c sb le t o each of t h e a i r c r a f t involved, but no opera tor s h n l l ho l i a b l e f o r a sun i n excess of t h e limit nppl icable t o hi:: d ~ c r a f t unless h i s l i a b i l i t y i s unl i - mited under t h e t e r m of A r t i c l e 12,

If t h e t o t a l amount of t h e claims es tab l i shed exceeds t h e l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y app l i cab le under t h e preceding A r t i c l e s , an a l l o c a t i o n s h a l l be made according t o t h e fol lowing r u l e s , t ak ing i n t o account t h e provisions o f paragraph (2 ) of A r t i c l e 11:

( a ) I f t h e claims nro excluoivel,y i n r e spec t of l o s s of l i f e o r personal i n j u r y o r sxc lus ive ly i n r e spec t of damage t o property, such claims s h a l l be reduced i n proport ion t o t h e i r r e spec t ive amounts,

(b) If t h e claims a r e both i n r e s p e c t of l o s s o f l i f e o r personal i n j u r y and i n r e spec t of damage t o j roper ty , one ha l f of the t o t a l sum d i s t r ibu t . ?b le s h a l l be appropr ia ted p r e f e r e n t i a l l y t o meet c l a i n s i n r e spec t of l o s s of l i f e o r personal i n j u r y and, if i n s u f f i c i e n t , s h a l l h c d i s t r i b u t e d propor t ional ly between t h e claims concernedo The remnindw of t h e t o t a l sum d i s t r i b u t a b l e s h a l l be d i s t r i b u t e d propnr- t i o n a l l y among t h e claims i n r e spec t of darnage t o property and t h e por t ion not a l - ready covered of tho claims i n r e spec t or' l o s s of l i f e and personal in jury .

S E C U R I T Y F O R O T E R A T O R D S L I A B I L I T Y

AHTICLE 15

( 1 ) Any C o n t ~ a c t i n g S t a t e m . 1 ~ rcquSre t h z t t h e l i a b i l i t y of t h e opera tor of s n a i r c r a f t r e g i s t e r e d i n another Con t r ac t i !lg S h t e , i n resyect of damage conteaplated

i n Ar t ic le 1 sustained i n i t s t e r r i t o r y , s h a l l be secured by means of insurance up t o t he l i n i t applicable according t o t h e provisions of Ar t ic le 11,

(2 > The insurance shall be deemed sa t i s f ac to ry i f it conforms t o t h e provisions of t h i s Convention and has been e f fec ted by an insurer , o r group of insurers , authorized o r permitted under t he laws of t he S t a t e where t he a i r c r a f t i s reg i s te red t o e f f ec t such insurance and whose f inanc ia l respons ib i l i ty has been ver i f i ed by t h a t State.

(3 Instead of insurance, e i t h e r of t h e following s ecu r i t i e s authorized by t he S t a t e i n which t he a i r c r a f t i s reg i s te red s h a l l be deemed sa t i s f ac to ry i f t he secur i ty conforms t o Ar t ic le 17 of t h i s Convention:

( a > a cash deposit i n a depository maintained by t h e S t a t e where t h e a i r c r a f t i s reg i s te red or with a bank duly authorized o r permitted t o g c t a s a depository by t h a t S ta te ,

(b ) a guarantee given by a bank authorized or permitted t o do so by t h e S t a t e where the a i r c r a f t i s registered.

( 4 ) The S t a t e overflown may a l so require t h a t the a i r c r a f t s h a l l carry a c e r t i f i c a t e issued by the appropriate au thor i ty of t h e S t a t e where the a i r c r a f t i s reg i s te red ce r t i f y ing t h a t insurance has been effected i n accordance with t he provisions of paragraph (2) of t h i s Art ic le , o r t h a t o ther secur i ty has been furnished i n accordance with t h e provisions of p r ag raph (3) of t h i s Art ic le ; unless a c e r t i f i e d copy of such c e r t i f i c a t e has been f i l e d with t he appropriate author i ty designated by t he S t a t e overflown, The form of such c e r t i f i c a t e is s e t out i n the Annex of t h i s Conventiono

( 5 ) Any requirements imposed i n accordance with t h i s Art ic le s h a l l be no t i f i ed t o t he Secretary General of the In te rna t iona l C iv i l Aviation Organization who s h a l l in forn each Contracting S t a t e thereof,

ARTICLE 16

( 1 The insure r o r o ther party providing secur i ty f o r the l i a b i l i t y of t he operator ray s e t up against claims by t h i r d par, t ies, i n addi t ion t o defences

. avai lable t o t h e operator, only the following defences.:

( a t h a t t he damage occurred a f t e r t h e secur i ty ceased t o be effect ive . However, i f t h e secur i ty expires during a t r i p , it s h a l l be continued i n force u n t i l t he next landing supervised by public author i ty , but no longer than twenty-four hours; and i f t he secur i ty ceases t o be e f f ec t i ve f o r any reason other than the expira t ion of i ts term, it s h a l l be continued u n t i l the withdrawal of t he c e r t i f i c a t e re fe r red t o i n paragraph (4) of Ar t ic le 15 becomes effect ive , but not beyond f i f t e e n days a f t e r no t i f i c a t i on t o t h e S t a t e where t h e a i r c r a f t i s reg i s te red by t he insure r o r t he guarantor t h a t t he secur i ty has ceased t o be e f fec t ive ;

(b t h a t t he damage occurred outside the t e r r i t o r i a l limits provided f o r by t he contract of insurance o r guarantee, unless f l i g h t outs ide of such l i m i t s was caused by force majeure, a s s i s t - ance j u s t i f i e d by the circwnstances, o r an e r r o r i n pi lo t ing, operation o r navigation,

(2) Without j-rejudice t o any r i g h t of d i r e c t a c t i o n which he may have under t h e law governing the con t rac t of insurance o r guarantee, t h e person s u f f e r i n g damage may b r ing a d i r e c t a c t i o n aga ins t t h e i n s u r e r o r guarantor i n cases where t h e l i a - b i l i t y of the l a t t e r i s extended, under t h e proyrisions of paragraph ( 1 ) of t h i s Ar t i c l e , f o r the b e n e f i t of t h e 7:erson s u f f e r i n g damge. IIe s h a l l a l s o have a r i g h t of d i r e c t a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r o r ~ i l a r a n t o r i n case of t h e o p e r a t o r t s bankruptcy,

(3 ) The p o v i s i o n s of t h i s A r t i c l e s h a l l riot ~ x e j u d i c e t h e questlo?: whether t h e i n s u r e r o r guarantor has a r i g h t of recouyse aga ins t any o t h e r person.

(1 ) I f s e c u r i t y i n a form o thc r tjian insumnee i s furnished it s h a l l be s p e c i f i c a l l y and p r e f e r e n t i a l l y assigned t o payment of claims under t h e provisions of t h i s Convention,

(2) The s e c u r i t y s h a l l be deemed s u f f i c i e n t i f , i n the case of an opera tor of one a i r c r a f t , it i s i n an amount equal t o t h e l i m i t app l i cab le according t o t h e provisions of A r t i c l e 11, and i n t h e case of an opera tor of s e v e r a l a i r c r a f t , i f it i s f o r an amount not l e s s than t h e aggregate of t h e l i n i t s of l i a b i l i t y app l i cab le t o t h e two a i r c r a f t sub jec t t o the h ighes t limits,

( 3 ) A s soon a s no t i ce of a clalm has been given t o t h e opera tor , the amount of t h e s e c u r i t y s h a l l be increased t o a t o t a l sum equivalent t o ( a ) t h e amount of t h e s e c u r i t y then required by paragraph (2 ) and ( b ) t h e amount of t h e claim not exceeding t h e l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y app l i cab le t o t h e a i r c r a f t csusing t h e damage. This increased s e c u r i t y s h a l l be maintained u n t i l t he clain: has been disposed of.

ARTICLE 12 --

The claim of an opera tor a g a i n s t an i n s u r e r o r guarantor s h a l l be exempt from s e i z u r e and execution by crecl i tors u n t i l claims of t h i r d p a r t i e s under t h i s Convention have been s a t i s f i e d ,

CIIAF'I'ER I'J

R U L E S O F P R O C E D U R E A N D L I l 4 I T A T I O I I O F A C -

If a claim f o r compensation i s not made a g a i n s t the opera tor wi th in twelve nonths from t h e da te of t h e i n c i d e n t which caused t h e damage, t h e c l a i m n t s h a l l only be e n t i t l e d t o compensation out of the amount f o r which t h e o7era tor remains l i a b l e a f t e r a l l clairrs made wi th in t h a t i2eriod have been met i n f u l l , sub- j e c t t o the limits provided by paragraph (2 ) of A r t i c l e 11,

( 1 ) Actions a g a i n s t any person from whom payment of compensation may be claimed under t h e provis ions of t h i s Convention may be brought only before t h e cour t s of tho p lace where t h e dalrage occurred. Iiowevor, upon agreement between a l l persons who have made claims f o r compensation wi th in t h e period contemplated by A r t i c l e 19 and t h e persons from whom :)ayrnent of compensation may be claimed under the provis ions of this Convention a l l a c t i o n s i n r e s p e c t of such claims may be brought before t h e cour t s of any Contrac t ing S t a t e ,

(2) Each Contrac t ing S t a t e s h a l l t a k e a l l necessary measures t o ensure t h a t t h e defendant and a l l o t h e r p a r t i e s i n t e r e s t e d a r e n o t i f i e d of any proceedings concerning them and have a f a i r and adequate oppor tuni ty t o defend t h e i r i n t e r e s t s ,

( 3 1 Each Contrac t ing S t a t e s h a l l EO f a r as poss ib le ensure t h a t a11 a c t i o n s a r i s i n g from a s i n g l e i n c i d e n t and brought i n accordance wi th paragraph ( 1 ) of t h i s A r t i c l e a r e consol ida ted f o r d i s 7 o s a l i n a s i n g l e proceeding before t h e same cour t .

( 4 1 Whew any f i n a l judgment i s pronounced by a competent cour t i n con- f o r n i t y wi th t h i s Convention, whether i n t h e presence of t h e p a r t i e s o r i n d e f a u l t of appearance, on which execution can be i s sued acuording t o t h e procedural law of t h a t c o u r t , t h e judgment s h a l l be enforceable, upon compliance wi th t h e fo r - m a l i t i e s prescr ibed by . the laws of the Contrac t ing S t a t e where execution is app l i ed f o r ,

( a > i n t h e Contrac t ing S t a t e where t h e judgment deb to r has h i s res idence o r p r i n c i p a l place of business o r ,

(b) i f t h e a s s e t s a v a i l a b l e i n tGat S t a t e and i n t h e S t a t e wllero t h e judgment was pronounced a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y t h e judgment, i n any o t h e r Contrac t ing S t a t e where t h e judgment debtor has a s s e t s D

( 5 ) The mer i t s of t h e case n;ay not be reopened i n proceeding8 under paragraph (4) of t h i s A r t i c l e .

( 6 ) The provis ions of paragraph ( 4 ) of t h i s A r t i c l e s h a l l not be deemed t o r equ i re t h e i s s u e of execution i f t h e c o u r t app l i ed t o f o r execution i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t :

(a) the $ i d p e n t tras given by d e f a u l t and t h a t t h e defendant di$ n o t acqu i re knowledge of the proceedings i n s u f f i c i e n t time t o a c t upon it;

(b t h e defendant was not given a f a i r and adequate opportunity t o defend h i s i n t e r e s t s ;

(C > t h e judgment is i n respect of a cause of a c t i o n which had a l ready , a s between t h e same p r t i e s , formed t h e s u b j e c t of ~ l n o t h e r judgment which i s recognized under t h e law of t h a t c o u r t a s f i n a l and conclusive;

( a > t h e judgment has been obtained by f raud of any of t h e p a r t i e s ;

(0 )' t h e r i g h t t o enforce ?.he judgment i s not ves ted i n t h e person by whom t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r execution i s mad?;

( f ) t h e judgnent i s one which i s contrary t o t h e public pol icy of t h e S t a t e i n which t l l n t court, is loca tedo

Document no I11

('7) If, in proceedings brought according to paragraph (4) of thi s Article, execution of any judgment is refused on any of the grounds ~eferred to in subparagraphs (a), (b), (d) or (f) of paragraphs (6) of this Article, the claimant shall be entitled to bring before the colorts of the State where execution has been refused, a new action for compensation not exceeding the amount ad~udicated to him in the previous judgment, In such new action the previous judgment shall be a defence only to the extent to which it has been satisfied, The previous judgment shall cease to be enforceable as soon as the new action has been started,

The right to bring a new action under this paragraph shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 21, be subject to a period of lfmitation of one year from the date on which the claimant has received notification of the refusal to execute the judgment,

( 8) Notwithstanding paragraph (4) of this Article, the court, applied to may refuse execution until final judgment has been given on all claims filed within the twelve monthslperiod referred to in Article 19 if it is evident that judgments exceeding in aggregate the limits of liability prescribed in this Convention might be entered, and shall not be obliged to execute judgments exceeding in aggregate the relevant limit until they have been reduced in accordance with Article 14 by the courts of the State where the actions were brought,

#

( 9) Where a judgment is rendered enforceable under this Article, payment of costs recoverable under the judgment shall also be enforceable, Nevertheless, the court applied to for execution may, on the application of the judgment debtor, limit the amount gf the costs to a sum equal to ten per cent of the amount for which the judgment is rendered enforceable.

(10) ' Interest not exceeding four per cent per annum may be allowed on the

judgment debt

(11) A judgment to which this Article applies shall only be enforceable within five years from the date on which it became finalo

ARTICLE 21

( 1) Actions for compensation under this Convention shall be subject to a period of IWtat%on of two years from the date of the incident which caused the damage,

(2) The grounds for suspension or in%erruption of the period referred to in paragraph (1) shall be determined by the law of the court trying the actf on; but in any case the right of action shall be extinguished on the expiration of three years from the date of the incident which caused the damageo

CHAPTER V

APPLICATION OF THE COmTION AND GENWAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 22

( 1) This Convention applies to damage contemplated in Article 1 caused in the territory of a Contracting State by an aircraft registered in another Contracting Staee,

(2) For t h e purpose of t h i s - -

Convention a s h i p o r a i r c r a f t on t h e high seas s h a l l be regarded a s p a r t of t h e t e r r i t o r y of t h e S t a t e i n which it i s reg i s t e red .

A R T I C LC- -....

This Conventicn does not apply t o damage caused t o an a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t , o r t o persons o r good3 on board such a i r c r a f t .

A R T I C L E 2.4

This Convention s h a l l not apply t o damage on t h e su r face i f l i a b i l i t y f o r such danage i s regu la ted e i t h e r by a c o n t r a c t of ca r r i age between t h e person who s u f f e r s such damage and t h e opera to r o r t h e person e n t i t l e d t o use t h e a i r - , c r a f t a t t h e time t h e danage occurred, o r by a c o n t r a c t of employment between such persons.

ARTICLE 25

This Convention does not apply t o damage caused by m i l i t a r y , customs o r po l i ce a i r c r a f t ,

A R T I C L E 26

Contrac t ing S t a t e s w i l l , a s f a r a s poss ib le , f a c i l i t a t e payment of compensation under t h e provis ions of t h i s Convention i n t h e currency of t h e S t a t e where t h e damage occurred,

ARTICLE 27

For t h e purposes of t h i s Convention:

"PersonN means any na tu ra l o r l e g a l person, inc lud ing a S ta te .

flNormal fliw means f l i g h t which i s i n conformity with e x i s t i n g c i i r t r a f f i c regula t ions .

"Ter r i to ry of a S t a t e " means t h e metropol i tan t e r r i t o r y of a S t a t e a d a11 t e r r i t o r i e s f o r t h e fo re ign r e l a t i o n s of which t h a t S t a t e i s responsib le , sub jec t t o t h e provisions of A r t i c l e 35.

IfContracting S t a t e f 1 means any S t a t e which has r a t i f i e d o r adhered t o t h i s Convention and whose denunciat ion thereof has not become e f f e c t i v e .

If l e g i s l a t i v e measures a r e necessary i n any Contrac t ing S t a t e t o g ive e f f ec t t o t h i s Convontion, the Sec re ta ry General of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l C i v i l Avia- t i o n s h a l l be inCormed fo r thwi th of t h e measures s o taken.

Document n o III / ,

ARTICLE 20

As between Contracting S t a t e s which a r e a l s o pa r t i e s t o t h e In te rna t iona l Conaentioh f o r the Unification o f Certain iiules r e l a t i n g t o Damage caused by Ai rora f t t o Third Pa r t i e s on the Surface opened f o r s ignature a t Home on the 29 May 1933, t he present Convention supersedes the s a i d Convent,ion of Romeo

F I N A L ? H O T J I S I O N S

ARTICLE 30

This Convention s h a l l remain open f o r s ignature u n t i l it comes i n t o force in accordance with t he provisions of Ar t i c l e 32.

(1 This Convention s h a l l be subject t o r a t i f i c a t i o n by the Signatory S ta tes .

(2) The instrum-ents of r a t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be deposited i n the archivea of t he In te rna t iona l C i v i l Aviation Organization, which s h a l l give not ice of t he da te of' depos i t t o each of t ho signatory and adheping S ta tes .

(1) A s soon as ...... of the s i g n a t o ~ y S t a t e s ham deposited t h e i r ins t ru - ments of r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h i s Convention, it s h a l l come i n t o fo rce between them on t h e n ine t i e t h day a f t e r the da te of the deposi t o f t he ...... instrument of r a t i f i - cat ion. It s h a l l come i n t o force , f o r each S t a t e which deposi ts i t s instrument of r a t i f i c a t i o n a f t e r t h a t da te , on t h e n ine t i e t h day a f t e r tne deposi t of i t s i n s t ru - ment of r a t i f i c a t i o n .

(2 The In te rna t iona l C iv i l Aviation Organization s h a l l give no t ice t o each . t. signatory S t a t e of t h e da t e on which t h i s Convention comes i n t o force.

(3 A s soon a s t h i s Convention comes i n t o force , it s h a l l be reg i s te red with t h e United Nations by t he Secre tary General of the In te rna t iona l C i v i l Aviation Organization.

(1) This Convention s h a l l , a f t e r it has come i n t o force, be open f o r adherence by non-signatory S ta tes .

(2) Adherence s h a l l be effocted by the dopooit of an f n s t ~ u m m t of adherence i n t he archives of the In torna t iona l C iv i l Aviation Organization, which s h a l l gi.ve not ice of the da te of the deposi t t o each s ignatory and adhering S ta te .

(3) Adherence s h a l l toke e f f e c t a s from the n ine t i e th day a f t e r the da te of the deposi t of the instrument of adherence i n the archives of t he In te rna t iona l C iv i l Aviation Organization.

ARTICLE 34 -

(1) Any Contracting S t a t e may denounce t h i s Convention by no t i f i c a t i on of denunciation t o the In te rna t iona l C iv i l Aviation Organization, wh5.ch s h a l l give no t ice of the date of r ece ip t of such no t i f i c a t i on t o each s ignatory and adhering S ta te .

(2) Denunciation s h a l l take e f f e c t s ix months a f t e r t he da t e of r ece ip t by the In t e rna t i ona l Civ i l Aviation Organization of t he no t i f i c a t i on of denunciation.

(1) Any S t a t e may a t t he time of deposi t of i t s instrument of r a t i f i c a t i o n or adherence, declare t h a t i t s acceptance of t h i s Convention does not apply t o any one o r more of the t e r r i t o r i e s f o r t h e foreign r e l a t i o n s of which such S t a t e i s responsible.

(2) The In te rna t iona l C iv i l Aviation Organization s h a l l give no t ice of any such dec la ra t ion t o each signatory and adhering S ta te .

(3) With the exception of t e r r i t o r i e s i n respect of which a declara t ion has been made i n accordance with paragraph (1) of t h i s Art ic le , t h i s Convention s h a l l apply t o a l l t e r r i t o r i e s f o r t he foreign r e l a t i o n s of which a Contracting S t a t e i s responsible.

(4 ) Any Contracting S t a t e may adhere t o t h i s Convention separate ly on behalf of a l l o r any of t he t e r r i t o r i e s regarding which it has made a declara t ion i n accordance with paragraph (1) of t h i s Ar t ic le and the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) of Ar t i c l e 33 s h a l l apply t o such adherence,

(5) Any Contracting S t a t e may denounce t h i s Convention, In accordance with the provisions of Ar t ic le 34, separate ly f o r a l l o r any of t he t e r r i t o r i e s f o r the foreign r e l a t i o n s of which such S t a t e i s responsible.

ARTICLE 36

(1) When the whole or p a r t of the t e r r i t o r y , t o which t h i s Convention app l ies , of a Contracting S t a t e i s t rans fe r red t o a non-Contracting S t a t e , o r when p a r t of such t e r r i t o r y becomes an independent S t a t e responsible f o r i t s own foreign r e l a t i ons , t h i s Convention s h a l l cease t o apply t o the t e r r i t o r y so t rans fe r red o r becoming an independent S t a t e a s from the date of the t r a n s f e r or achievement of independence.

(2) When the whole or p a r t of t he t e r r i t o r y , t o which t h i s Convention app l ies , of a Contracting S t a t e i s t rans fe r red t o m o t h e r Contracting S t a t e , t h i s Convention

s h a l l , a s from the date of such t m n s f e r , app ly t o the t e r r i t o r y so transferred a s pa r t of the t e r r i t o r y of the Contracting S ta te t o which it has been transferred.

I N WIThXSS IJIIEREOP the undersigned Plenipotantinriao, having been duly authorized, have s i iped t h i s Convention,

DONE a t on the day of the nonth of of tho year i n the En,ylish, French and Spanish Inngmges,

each t e x t being of equal authent ic i ty .

This Convention s h a l l be deposited i n the archives of the Interna- t i ona l C I v i l Aviation Organization where, i n accordance with Art ic le 30, it s h a l l remain open f o r signature,

ANNEX TO THE CONVENTION - CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE, GUARANTEX OR DEPOSIT

It i s hereby c e r t i f i e d t h a t the a i rcraf t ; with Registered Number ..... O O O O . O O O has beon duly insured f o r the period from O O O . . O O O O O . O . O O O O . O O e . O . a . t o

O O O O O O O O . O O O . . . O O . O O . . O O O O O f o r f l i g h t s over the following t e r r i t o r i e s . . O . . O . a o a

O O O . O O . . . O O . O O O . . . O O O O U O O . . O O o o O o O o against the r i s k s of l i a b i l i t y of the operator

contemplated by the Convention of O . O O O . . O O O O O O O . O O . O O O O . O O O . O O i n accordance with

the provisions of, and up t o t he l i m i t specified in , the said Convention a s appro-

p r i a t e t o the sa id a i r c r a f t , with an insurer o r group of insurers authorized or

permitted by the S t a t e of Registry of the said a i rc ra f t , and whose f inanc ia l ras-

pons ib i l i ty has been ver i f ied by t h a t State ; or t ha t , f o r the same period, and i n

respect of the same t e r r i t o r i e s , such r i s k s of l i a b i l i t y have been properly secured

by guarantee or deposit , a s a l t e rna t ive ly required by the said Convention and

authorized o r permitted by the S t a t e of Registry of tHe said a i r c r a f t .

SYNTHESIS

Document no IV

SYNTHESIS

OF COkWNTS AND PROPOSALS RECEIVED FROH STATES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS I N RESPBCT OF TME MEXICO CITY DRAFT CONVENTION ON DAMAGE CAUSED

BY FOREIGN AIRCRAFT TO THIRD PARTIES ON THE SURFACE AND ON THE ICAO COUNCILsS PHOPOSALS II

RESPECT OF THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS T H m F

PRELIMINARY NOTE

lo Before the Conference of Rome and during the f i r s t reading of the Mexico City draft a t t h a t Conference, comments and proposals were submitted i n writf ng by

- sevenkeen States:

Argentf na ( l0/9/52 ; 12/9/52 ; 15/9/52)

Australia ( 9/9/52 ; 11/9/52 ; 17/9/52 ; 27/9/52)

Belgium ( 8/4/52; 22/9/52)

Brazil (9/9/52; 12/9/52)

Canada (30/4/52 ; 22/9/52)

Denmark ( 30/4/52)

France (25/7/52; 15/9/52; 18/9/52)

I s r a e l ( 17/7/52)

1ta1y (29/7/52 ; 10/9/52 ; 13/9/52 ; 17/9/52 ; 18/9/52 ; 19/9/52)

Netherlands ( 19/5/52; 19/9/52)

Norway (25/4/52; 23/8/52 ; 17/9/52 ; 23/9/52)

Pakistan ( 3/5/52)

United Kingdom (6/5/52; 15/9/52 ; 22/9/52 ; 26/9/52)

United Sta tes (l0/9/52 ; 11/9/52 ; 12/9/52 3 17/9/52; 19/9/52; 22/9/52 ; 26/9/52 ; 29/9/52)

Document no IV

- six international organizations: United Nations (1/5/52)

FBdBration Ae'ronautique Internationale (29/3/52)

International Air Transport Association (25/7/52)

International Chamber of Commerce ( l0/9/52)

International Federation of Airline Pilots1 Associations (28/7/52)

International Union of Aviation Insurers (15/9/52)

2, Notice that they had no comments or proposals to fornulate was given by two States:

3 o The following pages contain the detailed comments and proposals grouped - in alphabetical order of States and international organizations - under the respective chapter8, articles or parts of articles to which they specifically refer.

Document no IV

P R I N C I P L E S O F L I A B I L I T Y

United States Throughout the development of t h i s Convention the United States has

urged tha t the basis fo r l i a b i l i t y of the Convention should be one of presumed rather than absolute l i a b i l i t y e The United States continues t o adhere t o t h i s position and desires again t o urge t h i s solution t o the problem* In any event, it w i l l urge tha t cer tain defences be permitted t o the operatoro

- Tne principle of npresumption of l i ab i l i t y t1 (as i n the Warsaw Conven-

t i on ) is i n accolidance with the principles of natural justice as is the one which should be adopted i n order t o comply with the recommendations of the Council of ICkQ as t o the maintenance of equitable balance between the in te res ts of the respective parties*.

Bust r a l i a Favors a system of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y and opposes any exceptions OT

defences except as provided i n Article 5 (armed confl ic t or c i v i l disturbances) and Article 6 (contributory negligence). There should be no r ight of compensation for noise o r normal f l i g h t of a i r c r a f t (nuisance),

I s r ae l A s drafted the provision excludes compensation fo r damage due t o

noise even though the f l i g h t i s not a "normal f l i gh tn , We suggest:

l9ievertheless there sha l l be no r ight t o compensation i f the damage is due t o the normal f l i g h t of a i r c r a f t through the airspace or the noise occasioned thereby, or i f the damage cannot be considered as d i rec t consequence of the incident giving r i s e t o damageno

This would be i n accordance with I s r ae l law a d - t o t h e best of our knowledge - i n accordance with the law of several other S ta tese

I t a l y It does not seem expedient t o view the two d i f fe rent cases of noise

and normal f l i gh t as not giving r i s e t o l i a b i l i t y fo r damage, Even an a i r c r a f t which is f lying normally may, at a given moment, cause damage t o th i rd par t ies on the surface; i n t h i s regard, it should be considered that normal f l i g h t , according t o the def in i t ion given i n Art ic le 27, i s merely a f l i g h t which is i n conformity with the a i r t r a f f i c regulations applicable i n the cases contemplated; thus, even i f an a i r c r a f t f l i e s while observing these regulations, it may cause damage i n the cases f o r wnich provision is made i n the Convention,

If reference i s t o be made t o normal f l i g h t , the following could be said: "due t o the noise of normal f l igh tn .

Norway It is proposed t o delete the final words "or i f the damage cannot be

considered as a d i r ec t consequence of the incident giving r i s e t o the damagen,

One cannot exclude a l l damage which is not d i r ec t ly caused, The courts w i l l always have t o appreciate whether a causal relationship, when proved, is suf f ic ien t ly close t o be lega l ly relevant (adequate) as base of a claim f o r com- pensationo An acceptable formula would be tha t proposed by the Drafting Committee i n Mexico:

"or i f the relat ionship between t h e incident giving r i s e t o the damage and the damage sustained is too remoteno

Document no IV Che I

Sweden In Mexico City a majori ty of t h e Legal Committee decided t o s t r i k e

out from t h e t e x t t h e condit ion t h a t t h e damage should be caused ' ldirectlyn. The reason f o r t h i s decision was t h a t t he word "directly" is ambiguous and incon- s i s t e n t with severa l l e g a l systems* After t h e I f raf t ing Committee had proposed an acceptable solut ion, t h e Committee, however, i n t h e second reading, inser ted t h e words "or i f the damage cannot be considered as a d i r e c t consequence of t h e incident giving r i s e t o t h e damagen.

This phrasing implies t h e same disadvantages ad the t e x t o r ig ina l ly before t he Committee i n Mexico City. It is urged that t he phrase i n question be deleted or replaced by a phrase acceptable t o a l l l e g a l systems,

United Kfn~dom

It is suggested t h a t t h e words "mere passagen give a c lea re r p ic ture of what i s intended than do t h e words "normal f l i g h t " as defined i n Ar t ic le 27 an6 should be subs t i tu ted f o r them,

U T A -- Ar t i c l e l ( 1 ) of t he Mexic~ City d r a f t imposes absolute l i a b i l i t y

f o r ground damage* A r u l e of l i a b i l i t y of t h i s character i s ridmittedly contrary Lo basic pr inciples of both the c i v i l law and t he common l a w . L i a b i l i t y f o r damage ardanar l ly and primarily a r i s e s when f a u l t , o r negligence, is proved, o r is presmed, and not rebutted. The Mexico Ci ty d r a f t i s a compromise. It imposes absolute l i a b i l i t y and at t he same time provides fo r reasonable limits of l i a b i l i t y which may not be exceeded except i n a narrow and c l ea r ly defined category of in ten t iona l wrongdoing, IATA believes t h a t t h e issue of absolute vs. presumed l i a b i l i t y should not be ra ised again unless t h e compromise s e t out in t h e Mexico City d r a f t i s d i s tu rbedp If the limits of l i a b i l i t y a r e t o be ra ised, o r i f t h e protection afforded by t h e Convention aga ins t unlimited l i a b i l i t y appears t o be inadequate, t h e j u s t i f i c a t i on for accepting t he pr inciple of absolute l i a b i l i t y would disappear.

Ar t i c l e l(2) - Austra l ia

The de f in i t i on of " in f l i g h t n i s sa t i s f ac to ry , but spec ia l provisions should be added t o cover hel icopters ,

France Replace ( i n t h e French t e x t ) t he words "en vue an by "pour procgder

au" I - Norway

The Convention ought t o apply a l so t o damage caused while an a i r c r a f t is manoeuvering on t h e surface without being i n f l i g h t .

United Kin~dom It i s considered t h a t the Convention should make spec i f i c provision

f o r hel icopters . This could be achieved by i n se r t i ng t he words "arid a he l icop te rN a f t e r t h e words " a i r c r a f t l i g h t e r than a i r n , The words "when it i s detachedv s h o d d be amended t o nwhen it becomes detachedn.

Ar t ic le 2 a s a whole

iUA1 - The I U A I believes t h a t t h e Convention should be much simplif ied by a

provision on the following l ines :

"1) Subject t o t h e provisions of t h i s Convention t h e operator named as such in t he c e r t i f i c a t e of insurance o r guarantee referred t o i n Ar t ic le 15 hereof, s h a l l be presumed t o be t h e operator and s h a l l be l i a b l e as such unless ha proves, i n t h e proceedings t o d e t e r d u e h i s l i a b i l i t y , t h a t some other person w a s i n f a c t t h e operator and, having regard t o t h e l e g a l

Document no IV Ch. I

procedure available, takes a l l reasonable steps t o procure the joinder of such other person i n the proceedings.

2) I f there i s no ce r t i f i ca te of insurance or guarantee, the registered owner of the a i r c ra f t sha l l be presumed t o be the operator and s h a l l be l i a b l e as such unless he proves . . . . e t c . (as i n 1. )"

I Article 2(2) (a) 1 Australf a

The defini t ion of "operatort1 i s acceptable.

Canada The defini t ion of the term "operatort1 is unduly complicated and should,

so f a r as possible, be simplified and improired.

I t a l y Replace paragraphs (2) and (3) by the following:

"The operator of an a i r c ra f t is the person entered as such i n the regis te r of the a i r c r a f t o r on any other o f f i c i a l document."

nIn the absence of such description, the owner i s deemed t o be operator and l i a b l e as such, unless he proves t h a t another person is the operator i n procuring the joinder of such other person i n the proceedings if such joinder is legal ly possible under the law of the court having jur isdict ionen

Norway The defini t ion of lfoperatorn i s complicated and ambiguous. The essent ial

elements are: 1 ) tha t the operator has the navigational control ( l a disposition) of the a i r c r a f t , and 2) tha t he uses it - personally or through h i s agents or servants - on h i s own account (pour son propre compte). Both elements a re included i n the French term " e x ~ l o i t a n t ~ ~ , which corresponds - as i n Scandinavian and cont imnta l maritime laws t o aarmateurll (whether owner o r not) and seems i n i t s e l f c lear enough, - cfr . Ambrosini and Ripert i n the proces-verbaux of the Rome Conference 1933, Vol.1, pp. 118 and 120. The Convention should, therefore, e i ther give no defini t ion o r a simple one corresponding t o Article 4 of the existing Qonvention as proposed by the Norwegian Delegate i n Mexico:

"the person who, a t the time the damage was caused, had the r ight t o use the a i r c ra f t on h i s own account and t o control i ts navigationn.

Australia Favors the principle of the vicarious l i a b i l i t y of the operator for an

act of an agent o r servant performing functions fo r which employed whether within or outside scope of authority with benefit of limits.

In order t o take in to account the divergencies of view expressed during the discussions i n the Legal Committee of the ~ n t e r n a i i o n a l Civi l viat ti on Organization it is proposed t o subs t i tu te ( in the French t ex t only) the word nfonctions" for t ta t t r ibut ionsn ( ~ n g l i s h unchanged ) .

The need and meaning of t h i s provision are not clear. (see Art icle 4 , pwagraphs (1) and (2). ) a

United Kingdom Delete the words "on h i s behalf" as they are considered superfluous.

Document no I V Ch* a:

Austra l ia F i r s t ~ r o p o s a l : Amend Ar t ic le 2(3) so as t o make t h e res- - -

pons ib i l i t y of t h e reg i s te red owner l e s s severe e i t h e r by s t r i k i n g out t h e last par t of t h e clause commencing Itand procurestt o r by l im i t i ng t h e obliga- t i o n t o t h e taking of a l l reasonable s teps t o procure joinder of t h e t r u e operat or.

Second proposal: Subs t i tu te f o r t h e clause "and procures ... ju r i sd ic t ionn , t h e following:

"and having regard t o t h e l e g a l procedures ava i lab le takes a l l proper measures t o procure t he joinder of t h a t o ther person i n t h e proceedings".

France Delete t he words " sha l l bet1 i n t h e second l i ne .

Italy F i r s t proposal: Delete t h e expression l1if such joinder i s

l e g a l l y possible under t h e law of t h e court having jur isdic t ion* s ince t h i s is a log ica l l im i t a t i on which is always considered when recourse has t o be made t o a l e g a l action.

Second proposal: See proposal under Ar t i c l e 2(2) (b) . United S t a t e s

The United S t a t e s is of t h e view t h a t Ar t i c l e 2 is acceptable jn i t s present form, with t h e exception of t he provision i n paragraph (3) which requires t h e reg i s te red owner when sued as operator t o procure t h e joinder i n such s u i t of t he person he proves t o be i n f a c t t h e operator. This provision i s deemed objectionable because it may be i n oontradiction t o t h e exculpatory provisions of Ar t ic le 4(2), s ince it implies t h a t t h e reg i s te red owner is s t i l l subject t o s u i t a f t e r es tab l i sh ing his own freedom from l i a b i l i t y . There i s no occasion t o impose on t h e r eg i s t e r ed owner t he respons ib i l i ty of securing t he joinder of t h e operation. The United S t a t e s therefore w i l l propose t h a t a l l of t h a t clause of paragraph (3 ) beginning with t h e words "and procuresn be eliminated.

IATA - Doubt may e x i s t as t o whether t h e regis tered owner w i l l escape

l i a b i l i t y under a s t a t e of f ac t s where he proved t h a t some other person w a s t he operator, but where he was unable t o procure t h e joinder of such other person because of h i s i n a b i l i t y t o obtain personal ju r i sd ic t ion over such person i n -the court where proceedings were pending. In t h e i n t e r e s t of c l a r i t y and t o preserve the intended memiing, t he words " and procures t h e joinder of such other person i n t h e proceedings i f such joinder is l e g a l l y possible m < e r t he law of the court having jur isdic t iont t , should be dele ted and replaced by t he words "and takes such s teps as the l a w of t he court having ju r i sd ic t ion may provide t o procure t h e joinder of such other person."

Austra l ia The period shozild be reduced t o U, days.

Braz f 1 Delete Ar t i c l e 3 bhich is contrary t o the f'undamental p r inc ip le

of t h e l i a b i l i t y of t t e operator as definsd i n Ar t ic le 2.

The period of t h i r t y days i s not jus t i f i ab le , The l e g a l s i tua - t i o n which would determine jo in i md several l i a b i l i t y would p e r s i s t , even aZter t h a t period has terminated.

I f , notwithstanding t h e existence of that l e g a l s i t ua t i on beyond t h e first t h i r t y days, t he d r a f t makes reparat ion f o r t he damage f a l l only on t h e operator of t h e a i r c r a f t , the re i s no reason fo r admitting t h e jo in t and severa l l i a b i l i t y f o r which provision is made i n Ar t ic le 3.

Document rio IV Ch, I

France T h i s Art ic le does not suf f ic ien t ly take in to account the position of

f lying clubs which rent a i r c r a f t t o t h e i r members, or t o other persons, Does the expression "the exclusive r ightn provide f o r t h i s case? It should be made more specifice

I t a l y F i r s t proposalx The basis fo r t h i s a r t i c l e is found in the system of

the d ra f t ; however, it would be superfluous i f the def ini t ion of noperator", with the consequence of compulsory insurance, proposed by the I t a l i a n Delegation were adopted .

Second proposalx To delete the Article,

IA3A - Article 3 of the Mexico City d ra f t would subject the lessor of an air-

c r a f t t o l i a b i l i t y when the lease is for t h i r t y days or less . It is f e l t t ha t the problems which t h i s would create i n connection with the obtaining of insurance would be such as, i n e f fec t , t o prevent the making of any such leases, that the imposition of any suck: l i a b i l i t y on the lessor i s unnecessary i n view of cther provisions of the d r a f t convention, and t h a t IATA must therefore object t o t h i s provision.

For these reasons, Article 3 should be deleted. I f the a r t i c l e remains, in aid of c l a r i t y the words "had not the exclusive r ight t o use the a i r c r a f t f o r a p e ~ i o d of a t l e a s t t h i r t y days dating f romthe time when such r ight comraencedl' should be deleted and replaced by the words "had the r ight t o use the a i r c r a f t f o r a period of l e s s than t h i r t y days from the t i n e when such r ight cornmeneed", so t h a t the a r t i c l e w i l l read as followss

" I f the person who Mas the operator a t the time the damage w a s caused had the r ight t o use the a i r c r a f t f o r a period of l e s s than t-Urty days from the tAme when such r ight comienced, the person from whom t h a t r ight was derived s h a l l be l i a b l e joint ly and severally w i t h the operator, aach of them being bound i n accordance with the provisions of this Corrventiono*

(proposed new paragraph ,! Il Aus t r d f a --

Add a new sub-clause 3(2) t o t h e e f fec t t ha t where a f l i g h t is made i n pusuance of a l icence, permit or special authority and the person t o whom the l icence, permit o r special authority was issued i s not the operator as defined i n Art ic le 2(1), t ha t person sha l l be joint ly and severally l i a b l e with the operator f a r damage t o which- the Convention appliesD

I I Articles 5 and 6

IATA - The defences of the operator authorized -

extremely limited, The operatap is ordinari ly l i a b l e by the Mexico City d r a f t a re unless he proves: (Article ~ ( 2 ) )

t ha t the-a i rc rar t was be& used without h is consent and t ha t he had taken proper measures t o prevent such use or tha t it was impossible fo r him t o do so; or (Article 5 ) that the damage is a d i r ec t consequence of a r ~ e d confl ic t or c i v i l distufiance, or tha t he has been deprived of the use of the a i r c r a f t by ac t of public authority; or (Article 6) contributory negligence,

This d ra f t does not permit the operator t o prove as a defence the intent ional a c t of a th i rd party on board the a i r c r a f t unconnected with the manage- ment of the a i r c r a f t , as provided i n Article 2(2)(b) of the Rome Convention of 1933*

The operator may not prove force ma-ieure as a defence, nor the independent and uncontrolled ac t of th i rd par t ies , even though intent ional i n character, 'unless such ac ts are those of th i rd par t ies covered by Art ic le 4 ( 2 ) and Article 5 s ta ted above

Document no I V Ch, I

I;s i n t he case of t h e acze$r;nce of t h e pr inciple of absolute l ia- b i l i t y , IATA f ee l s t h a t t n e present d r a f t must be looked a t a s a whole. If the limits f i n a l l y determined upon a r e reasonaole (as i n t h e Mexico Ci ty d r a f t ) , f f t h e operator is hssured of r e a l protection against l i a b i l i t y exceeding these limits exce2t i n cases of in ten t iona l harm, IATA does not wish t o r a i s e again t he question of defences. However, i f t he sound compromises represented by t h e Mexico Ci ty d r a f t were t o be disturbed, t he question of defences must be reexamined.

H i s t o r i c d l y , t h e pr inciple of absolute l i a b i l i t y has been j u s t i f i ed on two general bsses: f i r s t , i n t he case of ownership o r use of a "dangerous instrumentality1" second, i n t h e czse of t he in ten t iona l creat ion of a r i s k from ~ ~ , l c h t h i r d pa r t i e s imocen t ly suf f e r b

It i s evident t h a t ne i ther t h e Rome Convention of 1933 nor t h e Mexico City d r a f t assumes t h a t t h e a i r c r a f t i s a lldangerous ins t rumental i ty t to Under tr i is theory t he owner of a caged wild animal is responsible fo r damage caused by t h e m i m a 1 i f it escapes. Similar ly t h e owners of rese rvo i r s have been held responsible for danhge caused i r respec t ive o f t h e reason f o r t h e break, and Tsrsons s e t t i n g off b l a s t s of explosives a r e normplly absolute ly responsible i n t h e ccse of inc iden ta l damge i r respec t ive of fault,, Under t h i s r u l e p r ac t i c a l l y no defences a r e permitted. But it c m h ~ r d l y be claimed t h a t t h e a i r c r a f t i s a dargerous instrumentali ty. A s long ago as 1932, t h e year before t h e adoption of trle p r ~ s e n t Rome Convention, McBair (now a member of t he W6Pld Court at The ~ a g u e ) sa id t h a t "An a i r c r a f t e i t h e r at r e s t o r i n f l i g h t does not belong t o t h e category of th ings dangerous Ser s e . . .. ." ( ~ c ~ a i r , Law of the A i r , p, 66),

Under the second c l a s s i c theory o f l i a b i l i t y without fault , namely the theory of the in ten t iona l creat ion of a c t i v i t y which produces a r i s k t o innocent t h i r d par t ies , ~nany systems of law have admitted t h a t t h e par ty sought t.o be charged may prove as a defence t h a t h i s a c t was not 'the r e a l o r proximate cause of tile damage, and nay always prove contri'outory negligence. I n such cases the intervening and independent a c t of a t h i r d person, an a c t of God o r o ther e x a ~ p l e s of force niajeure , o r t h e a c t of public enemy o r public au-thority, a r e avai labla a s defences. But on fai1ur.e t o prove such intervening cause outside of the control of the phrty cliarged, such par ty w i l l be held l i a b l e as the c r , x t o r of t he r i s k which resulted i n darilage, even though negligence o r other f a d t be not proved.

The Rome Convention of 1933 permitted ce r t a in defences based on idepeudent and intervening causes fo r which t h e a i r c r a f t operator w a s not t o be held responsible, See, f o r example, Ar t ic les 2 (2) (b) , 3 and 5 of t h e Rome Con- vention 1533. llhZle t he Legal Combittee of ICAO was discussing revis ion of t h e dorm Convention, i t s subcorninittee charged with making recommendations as t o t he sug;ested revis ion f i l e d a supplementary repor t s t a t i ng , among other things, t h a t "it seems obvious t h a t even though absolute l i a b i l i t y has been adopted as t h e b m i c p r inc ip l e , it cannot be t he aim of the Convention t o place upon t h e operator l i c b i l i t y f o r a c t s in ten t iona l ly committed by persons over whom he has no control wkatsoever" . ( 1 )

In view of t l l i s background and of t h e t e x t of t h e Nexico City d ra f t i t s e l f it i s oavious t h a t t h e d r a f t does not seek t o p l ~ c e l i s b i l i t y on the operator as i f an a i r c r a f t were a wild animal o r "dangerous pe r s e n , If, t i ~ i ' 3 f 0 ~ 2 , t h e corqromises and b a l a n c ~ s ca re fu l ly included i n t h e Mexico City d r a f t i;e;e t o be ,eopened, IATA would urge t h e jus t i ce of reconsidering t he exLent oT ths defmces t o be made available. Such defences might well include tilo iixiepandent and unconirollec! a c t s of persors other than t he operator or h i s er.l?loyess, p r t i c u l a r l y in ten t iona l ac t s . It i s well known, f o r example, t h ~ t on2 ~ i r c r a f t hcs Sesn destroyed by a time bozb being placed aboard with t he object el" 2 1 l i n g one of t h e passengers. The operacor had no control over t h i s a c t xfld had r ~ o way t o r re vent it. Nevertheless under t he Kexico City d r a f t the operator wor Id have been responsible f o r any damage caused by the a i r c r a f t f a l i l n g on tha surface. Other ccses can be c i ted.

-

(I) Volume 7, Plinutes and ~ocu;r.cnts, ICAO Leg& Comi t tze , p. 290.

Also, the question of force majeure might well be re-examined, Traditionally the law of ca r r i e r s under all systems has linked defences of nact of Godn with defences of the a c t a f "a public enemytto The Mexico City d r a f t properly rel ieves the operator of responsibi l i ty from damages caused as t h e resu l t of war or public disturbance. It i s d i f f i c u l t t o understand why under the same lega l philosophy the a i r c r a f t operator should not be permitted t o prove tha t the a i r c r a f t f e l l as the r e su l t of force maleureo The householder insures himself against l o s s t o h i s property from lighting. But i f the loss resu l t s from lightning s t r ik ing an a i . z p k e pursuing i ts normal course through t h e airspace, and the airplane as a r e su l t f a l l s and h i t s a house, the operator under the Mexico City d ra f t takes the place of the insurer.

I f the compromfses and balances of the Mexico City d ra f t were t o be reopened, consideration would a lso have t o be given t o the question whether tha t d ra f t does not extend absolute l i a b i l i t y of the operator i n an unjustified manner fo r the benefit of persons who have i n fac t assumed the r i sks incident t o a i r c r a f t operation. Reference here i s part icular ly t o damage caused t o persons or property on airports . Persons who have placed themselves or t h e i r property on a i rpor ts cannot be considered as innocent th i rd par t ies , since they have done t h i s with f'ull knowledge t h a t a i r c r a f t f l y over and land i n areas included i n t h e a i rpor t and they are therefore i n the c lass of persons who assumed incident r isks .

h s t ralia Favors the following principles as regards the personal l i a b i l i t y

sf agents and servants:

(i) performing flmctions f o r which employed within scope of authority - no l i a b i l i t y ;

( i i ) performing functions etc. but outside scope of authority - l i a b l e but with benefit of limits;

(Pf i ) f o r t h e i r del iberate ac t or omission with in ten t t o cause damage (other than i n order t o avoid greatep damage) - l i a b l e without benefit of limits

Denmark The Danish Government is of opinion tha t it is inappropriate tha t

an internat ional convention should contain provisions on the personal l i a b i l i t y of servants and agents i n cases where they were acting while performing functions fo r which they were employed. The national leg is la t ions w i l l presumably contain the necessary provisions f o r dealing with t h i s problem and, i n cer ta in cases, provide for a reduction of the amount i n respect of which t h e operator, l i a b l e against t h i r d party under Art ic le 2(2) (b) , s e t s up h i s r ight of recourse*

Against the provisions of Art ic le 4 ( l ) i s fur ther objected tha t t he in te rpre ta t ion sf the words Itthe scope of h i s authorityn may d i f f e r from o m s t a t e t o another and t h a t i n the case where the servant or agent has l o s t h i s l i f e in ' the accident, the d i s t inc t ion betwen act ing within and outside the scops of the authority seems t o be without any value a t all.

France A change analogous t o tha t made i n Art ic le 2(2)(b) is proposed i n

paragraph (1) of Art ic le 4, which could read as follows:

"A servant or agent of an operator who makes use of an a i r c r a f t s f his principal while performing functions f o r which he was employed, but outside the scope of h i s authority, s h a l l be jo in t ly and severally l i a b l e , etcoe.. '"

( secre tar ia t Note: English t e x t unchanged; the French t ex t subst i tutes "fonctionsn f o r nat t r ibut ionsH. )

( l ) For additional t ex t s see the Report of the Committee on Art ic le 4, i n Document No V I of this Volume, a t p. 205.

1- . .- F i r s t proposal8 It is proposed t o adopt t h e form of Ar t ic le 6 of

t h e Rome Con-lention which is simpler, and considers all t h e cases f o r which provi- s ion 13 made i n Ar t ic les 4 and 13 of t h e d r a f t o I n any case, Ar t i c l e 4 ( l ) should be amnded so a s t o include a l so the case of t h e servant o r agent who makes use of an a i r c r a f t outs ide t ne scope of h i s author i ty , but i n a case of necessi ty; i n such a case he cannot be considered l i a b l e , However, paragmph (1) could be draf ted thus a

"A servant o r - agent of t h e operator who unlawfully makes use of . i . , ." Second proposalt Paragraph (1) should become paragraphe (2) and t h e

word '~urlaaW%ul^ly" should be &ded before the words %akes use o fn i n t he f i r s t l i ne .

: i e tWr lmQ - It has already been pointed out by t h e Netherlands Delegate during

t he s e s s i c n of the Legal Committee i n Nexico Ci ty i n January 1 9 5 1 t h a t , i n can- necSion with t he de f in i t i on of operator i n Ar t i c l e 2, paragraph (2)(b), Ar t ic le 4, paragraph (1) only r e f e r s t o the servant making use of t h e a i r c r a f t outs ide t h e 3~073~3 of h i s autfiority, but on behalf of h i s psinoipal , For t h i s pr incipal is operateor according 50 t h e f i r s t l i n e of Ar t ic le 4, paragraph (1) and he i s such only a x o r d i n g t o the de f in i t i on of Ar t i c l e 2 , paragraph ( 2 ) ( b ) , when t he servant :,,&es v.se of the s i r c r a f t on h i s be-ialf. For t h i s reason a servant making use of -I;m a i r c r a f t of h i s p r inc ipa l outside t he scope of h i s author i ty and not on h i s or=helf does not f a l l uncier the purview of Ar t ic le 4, paragraph (I) , but under Artfcle 4 , paragrafl (2),

Conse,ylently, i n t he case of joyriding by the s eman t , Ar t ic le 4, paragraph (2) i s q ,p l ieab le so t h a t t h e pr incipal has t h e pos s ib i l i t y of exculpa- t ion. This de f in i t e ly has not been t h e in ten t ion of t he Legal Committee when dra f t ing i n i s Art ic le . And, moreover, t h e consequences a r e very undesirable, f o r t h e t h i r d par ty on the surfacs would not be e n t i t l e d t o compensation i n the case of d a a g e caused by a servant who used t h e a i r c r a f t outside t h e scope of h i s au$horitg a d nctt on behalf of h i s principal . The in ten t ion of t he Legal Committee has beer: t o prevect tilis consequence by giving t h e p r inc ipa l no ~ 3 s s i b i l i t y f o r exculpation i n t he case of his a i r c r a f t being used by h i s servants. By mentioning the t e r n "operatorn i n A r ~ i c l e 4 , paragraph (11, t h i s in ten t ion has not been expressed, A solut ion 2s g5ven hereunder a f t e r t h e comments on paragraph (2) i n which it is proposed t o conbine both paragraphsb

Norway Absolute l i a b i l i t y of t h e operator I s jus t i f i ed by t h e considera-

tion t ha t he exercises t o h i s own benef i t an a c t i v i t y which is dangerous t o t h i r d pa r t i e s on tha surface, H i s servants or agents,on t h e other hand, a r e only bound t o him by ordinary contracts of engagement, Apart from cases contemplated i n paragraph (2) wk1er.e they themselves a c t as operators, t h e i r l i a b i l i t y should be based cn f a u l t i n conformity with t h e general pr inciples of l i a b i l i t y f o r t a r t s , and i t s r e p l a t i o n snould, as i n t he ex i s t ing Convention, be l e f t t o t h e national. l a w s Tne victirc of an accident w i l l r egu la r ly sue t h e operator, and even t h e l a t t e r " r i g h t of recourse against t he servant o r agent is of l i t t l e p r ac t i c a l importance.

Sweden -- The present t e x t (cfr . o ther Ar t ic les , such as 2(2) (b), 4 (2) ,

10 and 1 2 ) makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between such servants o r fagents performing functions f o r wflich they a m employed, as a r e act ing within the scope of t h e i r author i ty , and such as are ac t ing outs ide that scope, A servant o r agent of t he first group cannot generally be held l i a b l e acco~ding t o t he Convention, while t he nat,ional laws may possibly give t h e operator a r i gh t of recourse against him, I f t h e servant o r agent w a s ac t ing outside t h e scope of h i s author i ty , he is subject t o absolute l i a b i l i t y j o in t l y and several ly with t h e operator* Such a so lu t ion embodies t h e idea t ha t t he servant o r agent, when a c t h g outside t h e scope of h l s a u t m r i t y , conmits a fault* It would seem as i f t he servent o r agent, should

Document no I V Che I

it be proved tha t he was acting outside the scope of h i s authority, cannot escape absolute l i a b i l i t y , unless, at least ' i n some States , he can prove tha t he was i n d i s t r e s s or t r i e d t o avoid greater damage, etc.

As explained i n e a r l i e r comments, the Swedish Government - which moreover is not quite convinced tha t it i s necessary fo r the Convention t o deal with the l i a b i l i t y of servants or agents performing functions for which they ware employed - cannot find tha t a solution of t h i s kind is e i ther appropriate or equitable. In cases where the servant o r agent has l o s t h i s l i f e i n the accident, the doubt which might a r i s e out of the f ac t t ha t the servant o r agent can no longer explain the reasons f o r h i s way of acting, should be against the claimant. The present d ra f t does not guarantee th i s . It has fur ther t o be taken into account tha t the interpretat ion of the words %he scope of h i s authorityM might d i f f e r from one S ta t e t o another.

Especially since the servant's or agentgs l i a b i l i t y generally represents a very limited value t o t h e claimant, it would seem su f f i c i en t if the sesvant o r agent were held l i a b l e only i n cases where he intent ional ly and without adequate reasons had made use of the a i r c r a f t outside the scope of h i s authorityo

Finally, the Swedish Government e f f e c t tha t t h i s paragraph s h a l l not prevent a incumbent upon a servant or agent t o an amount

It i s observed tha t Denmark and

is i n favor of a proviso t o the court from reducing an indemnity tha t he could reasonably pa:-.

Sweden have offered comments on Asticle 4(1) of the d r a f t convention which might lead t o a proposal t o modify the measure of protection now granted by the d ra f t convention t o p i lo t s i n t h e i r capacity as servants and agents of operators.

This Federation has h i ther to refrained from submitting comments on the d r a f t convention as it was f e l t t ha t i n i ts present form it offered some measure of protection t o p i lo ts - though not qui te as much as the Federation would l i k e t o see. The Federation was prepared t o accept the present provisions u n t i l such t h e as experience might prove a need f o r increased protection fo r pilots. Now tha t there is a poss ib i l i ty of the exis t ing provisions being modified t o the disadvantage of p i lo ts , the Federation considers it necessary t o submit a comment on the subject.

I f it is considered in the public in t e res t t o regula te , a t in te r - national leve l , the l i a b i l i t y of an operator of an a i r c r a f t causing damage t o th i rd par t ies on the ground, it i s equally desirable tha t the l i a b i l i t y of p i lo t s of such a i r c r a f t should be s imilar ly dea l t w i t h a t internat ional level. The comments of Denmark and Sweden above referred t o suggest t h a t the p i l o t D s posit ion m5ght be dea l t with by the various national laws. It i s submitted tha t t h i s would involve an unsatisfactory posit ion whereby claims might, i n soqe Sta tes , be made against p i lo t s i n addition t o those made against operators p ~ l r ~ u a n t t o the provisions of the Convention.

The question as t o whether or not a pilcit was act ing inside or out- s ide "the scope of h i s authorityn should qormdly be a question of fact . If the quoted phrase is interpreted d i f fe rent ly i n various s ta%es the Convention i t s e l f should attempt t o define the expression.

The Federation is informed t h a t i n q t l e a s t two States a number of a i r c r a f t accidents have been followed by claims being brought against the p i lo t s even though a t the time they were acting as servants or agerats of operators. In a t l e a s t one such case, the claim was pursued against the deceased p i l o t a s l e g a l personal representatives. This l a t t e r instance negatives the suggestion tha t the death of a servant o r agent i n an accident cancels the value of any d is t inc t ion between acting w i t b j n o r outside the scope of authority,

The Federation concedes t h a t cases may a r i s e where a p i l o t may be gui l ty of serious negligence or serious disobedience t o instruct ions which might be indefensible, It i s considered, however, t h a t such cases a r e unlikely t o be common. The Federation desires it t o be borne fn mind tha t claims not based on such serious grounds may more frequently be made against p i lo t s ,

The Federation submits t h a t it i s not unreasonable t o ask tha t the Convention should mke it c lear t h a t an fnJured party avai l ing himself of the r igh t t o compensation granted by the Convention sha l l not be en t i t l ed t o parsue a fur ther

claim a r i s i n g out of: t h e same b c i d s n t against p i lo t s . The Convention imposes an absolute l i a b i l i t y on ELn operator so t h a t an in jured party can hardly be prejudiced i f he i s l imi ted t o h i s r i g h t s against t he operator. If, f o r any reason, it is not possible. to exclude completely a l l pos s ib i l i t y of claims being brought against p i l o t s , it i s submitted t h a t the Uonvention should r e c i t e t h a t any claim brought agsins t a p i l o t i n addi t ion t o , o r i n l i e u o f , a claim against an operator under t he Convention should not expose t h e p i l o t t o any l i a b i l i t y g rea te r than t h a t of t h e operat o r ,

France The expression %riLess he proves t h a t he has taken proper measures

t o prevent such usett is qu i te d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t , s ince t h e nature and extent of these measures a r e not defined, It seems t h a t it would be b e t t e r t o replace t h i s expression by t he following:

munless he proves t h a t he has taken measures which norrhally ought t o have prevented such use o r t h a t it was impossible f o r him .... 19

In the last sentence of t H 6 same paragraph, i n t h e French t e x t , t he two words llresponsablen andnsolidairement" should be reversed t o read "solfdairament responsable".

I t a l y F i r s t proposal: The beginning of t h e paragraph should be dra f ted

as follows: "Vilere a person unlawfully makes use of .oe without the consent of t h e

operator ' I .

Second proposal: Paragraph (2) should become paragraph (1). In t he new paragraph (11, de l e t e t h e words "as operator without t h e conSent of t h e person e n t i t l e d t o i t s navigational controln and subs t i t u t e t h e words "without having t he ?right and without t he consent of t he operator".

@Jot%$ This i s a l a t e r proposal than t h e first one)

Third proposal: Adopt t h e following text:

Where a person, without having t h e r i g h t t o make use of an aircraft, makes use of it without t h e consent of the operator, he s h a l l be l i a b l e f o r damage mused on t h e surface , and t he operator who does not prove t h a t he has taken dl proper measures t o avoid, t he unlawful use of h i s a i r c r a f t s h a l l be j o in t l y and severa l ly l i a b l e with the unlawful user , each of them being bound within t h e provisions anci l imf t s of t h i s C o n ~ e n t i o n , ~ ~

(Note: This is a l a t e r proposal than the f i r s t two)

Nekherlands With regard t o Ar t ic le 4, paragraph (2), the re is occasion t o

d i s t ingu ish betwsen t he case t h a t t he user had obtained t h e use of t h e air- c r a f t with tne consent of the owner but had kept t he a i r c r a f t longer than t h e period of time allowed and t he e w e t h a t t h e user unlawPally took possession of t h e a i r c r a f t . On"* i n t he l a t t e r case t he owner should have t h e pos s ib i l i t y t o exculpate himself* Under t he present wording t he following case is l i a b l e t o occure B person char ters an a i r c r a f t f o r a ce r t a in period of t h e o When t h i s period of time has elapsed, ke continues f ly ing a d causes damage t o t h i r d pa r t i e s on t he surface, By v i r t ue of the t e x t of t h e d r a f t t h e owner may e a s i l y exculpate himself. In f a c t , he had only leased u n t i l a d e f i n i t e hour and it was impossible f o r hlm t o force t h e char te re r t o be back a t t h a t specif ied houro However, t he consequence is tha t t h e t h i r d par ty on t h e surface can only claim payment from the char terer , which i n most cases makes h i s act ion f o r damage i l l u so ryo It must be considerec? f a i r t h a t i n such a case t h e owner of the a i r c r a f t can be made j o in t l y and severa l iy l i a b l e with the h i r e r .

Document no I V - 123 - Ch. I

The owner has the poss ib i l i ty of effecting an insurance against dmage t o th i rd parties. When leasing a i r c r a f t , the owner undertakes a cer tain r isk. This r i s k can be included i n the amount charged fo r leasing the a i r c ra f t , In case a user unlawfully obtains the use of an a i r c r a f t , there should be a cer tain poss ib i l i ty f o r exculpation of the principal. A s a solution of the problem raised with reference t o the t ex t of Article 4, paragraph (2), the Netherlands propose the following redraf t of Article &:

Where a person -mlawfully makes use of an a i r c r a f t as operator without the consent of the person ent i t led t o i t s navigational control, the l a t t e r s h a l l be l i a b l e joint ly and severally with such person, each of them being bound i n accordance with the provisions of t h i s Convention. Whenever the a i r c r a f t i s unlswfully taken by a person other than a servant of the person en t i t l ed t o i ts navigational control, the l a t t e r person s h a l l not be l i a b l e i f he can prove tha t he has taken proper measures t o prevent such action or t h a t it w a s impossible for him t o do soen

United Kingdom Replace the word fiimpossiblen by the word Himpracticable*.

United Sta tes The United States believes tha t the in t e res t s of c l a r i t y w i l l

be served by subst i tut ing the words "exercised due care t o prevent such user1 i n l i e u of the words "taken proper measures t o prevent such use or tha t it was impossible fo r him t o do soen

Brazil The second part of t h i s Art ic le should be deleted. The "person

l i a b l e under the provisio& of t h i s Conventionn is the operator of the a i r c r a f t defined i n Art ic le 2(1) as "the person who was making use of the a i r c r a f t at the time the demage w a s causedn. It is thus evident tha t a person who has been deprived of the use of an a i r c ra f t by an act of public authority cannot be considered, pursuant t o the Convention, as the operator of such a i r c r a f t , i f the damage was caused when he was deprived of i t s use. I f someone i s deprived of the use of an a i r c r a f t , e i ther by an ac t of public authority, o r by an ac t of a th i rd party, he is prevented from making use of the aircraf't and, consequently, can cause no damage with it. I f , at the time the damage was caused, the a i r c r a f t w a s being used by a t h i r d party, whether a public authority or n o t , - i t i s f o r the operator of the a i r c r a f t t o give compensation a t t h a t time, pursuant t o the Art ic le 2(1) above-mentioned,

I s r ae l One possible e f fec t of Art ic le 5, read with Art ic le 9 i s tha t i f as

a r e su l t of c i v i l disturbances or armed conf l ic t s an a i r c r a f t unintentionally causes damage on the surface, no l i a b i l i t y would be created under the Conventionf We can see no reasonwhy l i a b i l i t y f o r unintentional damage caused by armed con- f l i c t or c i v i l disturbance should not f a l l within the scope of the Convention and be dea l t with according t o the general princfple of l i a b i l i t y enunciated i n the Convention.

United Kingdom It i s considered tha t the operator should be provided with a defence

where damage re su l t s from the wrongful ac i of a th i rd p a r t 6 whether inside or out- s ide the a i r c r a f t , done with in ten t t o cause damage. To meet t h i s point is is suggested t h a t the present paragraph be numbered It(2)" and the following new paragraph inserted before it:-

"(1) The provisions of Art ic le 2 r e l a t ing t o the l i a b i l i t y of the operator s h a l l not apply i f the damage has been caused by an a c t committed intent ional ly by a th i rd party not a member of the crew, when the ac t has no connection with the operation of the a i r c r a f t and when neither the a c t nor the damage could, with proper care, have been prevented by the operator or h i s servant^.^


United S t a t e s The United S t a t e s

- 124 -

believes t h a t the re should be added t o t h i s Art ic le a paragraph which would provide the operator with a defence where damsge r e s u l t s from the wrongful and i n t en t i ona l a c t of a t h i rd party, It w i l l there- fo re propose t he addi t ion of t he following paragraph a s (I) of Ar t ic le 5:-

"(1) The provision of Ar t ic le 2 r e l a t i n g t o the l i a b i l i t y of the operator s h a l l not apply i f the damage has been caused by an a c t com- m i t t e d in ten t iona l ly by a t h i r d par ty not a member of the crew, when ne i ther the a c t nor the damage could, with due care, have been prevented by the operator or h i s servants,"

IUAT - If the p r inc ip le of objective l i a b i l f ty must be re ta ined, t he IU$I

nevertheless maintains t ha t , a s an exception t o the p r inc ip le and t o ensure an equi table balance between the par t i es , the defences of "Act of GodN and "wrongful a c t of a t h i r d party" should be permitted t o an fnnocent operator, i n agdi t ion t o those mentioned i n t h i s Art ic le ,

Ar t ic le 6(1) a Canada

The operator should be re l ieved from l i a b i l i t y under Art ic le 6 i n cases where it i s proved t h a t t he damage resu l ted from causes e n t i r e l y beyond h i s control ,

France Delete ( i n t he French t ex t ) the word tlToutefoislt a t t he beginning

- -

of the second sentence,

Replace ( i n t he French t e x t ) t he beginning of the f i r s t sentence by I1La personne r&put&e responsable aux termes de l a pr6sente convention . . .?

I n s e r t a f t e r the words "by t h e person who suf fe rs the damageN the words "or h i s servants o r agentsn and amend Art ic le 6(2), a s proposed below.

United S t a t e s --- The United S t a t e s w i l l propose t 'mt the word "othern which precedes

the words 'krongful a c t n i n both sentences of Art ic le 6(1) be eliminated.

I Art ic le 6 ( 2 ) 1 Denmark

Replace the words "when ac t ing within the scope of t h e i r author i tyn by "unless it i s proved t h a t they were ac t i ng outside the scope of t h e i r author- i ty" ,

France Have t h i s paragraph read a s follows:

"The exemption from o r reduction of l i a b i l i t y a s provided i n t h e preceding paragraph s h a l l be a f fec t ive with respect t o a l l those who have suffered damage due t o t h e death or in ju ry of the victim."

I t i s proposed t o c l a r i f y the expression Itand a person whose death or i n ju ry i s asse r ted t o give r i s e t o the damagen, s ince it i s obscure i n i t s present form,

United S t a t e s The Uni 'ced S t a t e s w i l l propose t h a t this paragraph be redraf ted a s

s e t f o r t h below:-


the "For the purpose of t h i s Art ic le , the expression gperssn who suf fe rs damageg s h a l l include:-

(1) The servants and agents of such person, wiless the l a t t e r proves t h a t they were act ing outside the scope of t h e i r authority; and

( 2 ) A person whose death or in jury is asser ted t o give r i s e t o a claim f o r compensation under t h i s Conventionon

Thi s proposed d r a f t , in addi t i on t o achf eving what f s believed t o be a c learer statement, has the e f f ec t of t ransferr ing t o t h e i r pr incipal the burden of proof t h a t the servants were actfng outside t h e i r authori ty ,

hustra l f a The present Art ic le 7 i s unsatisfactory, It f a i l s t o indicate

whether a l l . the a i r c r a f t invloved must be in f l i g h t a s defined i n Art ic le 1, There i s a l a t e n t ambiguity on the question of causation and it i s by no means c l ea r how Art ic le 10 is intended t o operate f r fgh t of recourse),

It i s considered that :

( f ) the Art ic le should apply only t o a i r c r a f t in f l f ght;

( f i ) t he victim should have a remedy against the a i r c r a f t whfch causes the damage by contact, f i r e or explosion and against any other a i r c r a f t which contributed t o the accident e i t h e r by a neglfgent manoeuvre i n f l i g h t without ac tua l co l l i s ion , or a collision i n f l i g h t howsoever caused, mless he proves it was due so le ly t o the negligence of the a i r c r a f t causing the damage by contact, f i r e or explosion,

France This Art ic le should be deleted, s ince its provisions a r e i q l f c f t l y

contained i n Ar t ic le 13, paragraph (2) t h e e s sen t i a l aim of which is t o ensure the protect ion of the victfm, An amendment t o Article 13, paragraph (2) below would permit the delet ion of Brtfc le 7,

( ~ o t e : See t h i s amendment under "hrtf eke 13(2)vt ,)

Delete Art ic le 7 of the d ra f t ,

(Note: See a l so I t a l i a n proposal on Art ic le 13(2), The l a t t e r proposal involves the combining of Articlgs 7 and 13,)

Netherlands The d ra f t i ng of t h i s Art ic le is not c lear ; it does not follow from -

the text t h a t the wording "under t he conditfons ... Conventionn only r e f e r s t o the word nexcess", t h i s wording equally appl ies t o lleoncurrenceRo

The French and English t e x t s are not completely authent ic , hecord- ing t o the English t e x t a r i g h t of compensation should be allowed i n respect of the damage according t o Art ic le 1, when t h i s damage i s caused by two or more a f r c r a f t , Aecording t o the French t e x t the cause of the damage of the two a i r - c r a f t should comply with Art ic le Po I n pract ice , the following case may occur. Two a i r c r a f t a r e i n f l i g h t , By a manoeuvre of one the other crashes; the formar remains i n f l i g h t . Aecording t o the English t ex t , both a r e j o in t ly and several ly l i a b l e , The damage has been caused by two a i r c r a f t . It does not follow from the French t e x t t h a t t he damage i s caused by two a i r c r a f t under the conditions a s l a i d down i n Art ic le 1; f o r the second a i r c r a f t i s and remsine in normal f l igh t . I n the penultimate l i n e of the F rench tex t r e fe renee i s only made t o the term *conditionsN, whereas the English t e x t mentions conditions and l fmftat ionso

(1) For addi t ional t e x t s i n Document No VI,

see the Report of the Conafttee on Art ic les 9 and 13(2) of t h i s Volume, page 267,


When two a i r c r a f t cause damage and have t o pay consequently, bu t only one of the two i s a t f a u l t , i t is possible f o r the a i r c r a f t which 1s not a t f a u l t t o have recourse against the a i r c r a f t a t f a u l t , which a s the ease may be, w i l l have t o pay i n excess of the limit fixed, It i s s ta ted i n Art ic le 9 t h a t no person i s l i a b l e otherwise than a s expressly provided i n t h i s Convention; according t o Art ic le 10, the Convention does not provide f o r the recourse-problem and according t o Art ic le 13, paragraph (2) an operator f s never l i a b l e i n excess of hig limit, A l l t h i s must apparently be explainea i n such a way t h a t both A r t i - c l e 9 and Art ic le 13, paragraph (2) exclusively provide fo r the l i a b i l i t y with regard t o the injured par ty on the surface, so t h a t - a l s o i n v i r tue of Art ic le 10 - a recourse-action i s possible and i n spec ia l cases an a i r c r a f t w i l l have t o pay i n t o t o i n excess of the l i m i t f ixed, --

Since, according t o the system of the Conventi oa, limits a re fixed a s the counterpart of the pr inciple of absolute l i a b i l i t y there is every reason t o make these limits a l s o e f fec t ive with recourse-actions, It seems, therefore, desirable t o d r a f t c lear ly i n the Convention the pr inciple t h a t the recourse- act ions a s w e l l a r e limfted t o the limits a s mentioned in the Convention, I n order t o remove a l l doubt concerning t h i s subject it i s suggested t o add t o Art ic le 10 the words: matabject t o the provisions gf Article lln,

United Kingdom The present wording of the Art ic le i s obscure and the following

wording, which i s believed t o convey the intent ions of the draftsmen, is suggested:

When damage f o r which a r i g h t of compensation i s granted by Art ic le % has been caused by two or more a i r c r a f t , the operators of the a i r c r a f t concerned s h a l l be jo in t ly and several ly l i a b l e , provided always t h a t the operator of an a i r c r a f t s h a l l under no circumstances be l i a b l e f o r a greater sum than the mscfmum amount applicable t o h i s a i r c r a f t i n accordance wfth the provisions of Art ic le 11, unless his l i a b i l i t y is unlimited under the provi sf ons of A r t i c l e 120n

Uni ted S t a t e s The United S ta tes urges t h a t Art ic le 7 i n i t s present form be de-

le ted from the Convention, f o r the reason t h a t the uncer ta int ies created by it more than o f f se t i ts value, Indeed, it has been the observation of the United S ta tes derived from discussfons i n the Legal Committee of ICAO and informally with many of the representatives a t t h i s Conference, t h a t there may be a s many a s three d i f fe ren t in te rpre ta t ions of Art ic le 7 because of a d i f f e r en t construe- t i on given t o the word ncausedu a s used therein ,

The s i tua t ion i n which damage on the surface is most l i ke ly t o r e s u l t from the independent operation of two or more a i r c r a f t , i s the s i tua t ion a r i s ing from a col l is ion. It is the posi t ion of the United S ta tes t h a t when an a i r c r a f t invalved i n a co l l i s ion is able t o continue i t s f l i g h t without i t s e l f coming i n t o contact with any person o r property, no l i a b i l i t y under t h i s Conven- t i on should a t t ach t o the operator of t h a t a i r c r a f t , Any l i a b i l i t y whfch the operator of t h a t a i r c r a f t might be subject t o w i l l be l e f t t o the l oca l law of the place where the co l l i s ion occurred, The same is t rue of the case where the two a i r c r a f t did not col l ide , but the operation of one interfered wfth the opera- t i on of the other i n such a way a s t o r e s u l t i n i t s crashinge

Any other posit ion requires the establishment i n the Convention of e i t h e r a doctrine of f a u l t or absolute l i a b i l i t y of an a i r c r a f t operator, who might be gu i l t y of no f a u l t and who did no t I n f a c t come i n t o any contact with any person or property on the surface,

The elimination of the provision would not take away from the person damaged the r i gh t of recovery against the operator whose a i r c r a f t came i n t o contact with the surface, and would l e t the person damaged pursue whatever remedy he might have under nat ional l eg i s l a t i on against the operator of the a f r c r a f t which l e f t the scene,

Document no TV Ch, I

I A'TB - Artic les 7 and 13(2) should be combined so t h a t Art ic le 7 will read

a s follows:

When damage f o r which a r i gh t of compensation i s granted by Art ic le 1 has been caused by two or more a i r c r a f t , the person who suffered the damage s h a l l be en t i t l ed t o be compensated up t o the aggregate of the l i m i t s of each of the a i r c r a f t involved, but no operator s h a l l be l i a b l e f o r a sum i n excess of the limit applicable t o h i s a i r c r a f t , unless h i s l i a b i l i t y i s unlimited under the terms of Art ic le 12."

I U g I - For reasons already s ta ted i n debate, the I U A I bel ieves t h a t t h i s

Art ic le should be deleted and t h a t the question shbuld be l e f t t o nat ional laws u n t i l such time a s a co l l i s ion convention i s r a t i f i e d ,

I Art ic le 8 1 No comments.

Art ic le 9 1 Australia

The remedies provided under the.Convention should be exclusive,

The provision concerning damage done with i n t e n t t o avoid greater damage i s unreal and should be omitted from Ar t ic le 12(1). I f the pr inciple is included, however, it should a l s o appear i n Art ic le 9.

Denmark Replace the present t e x t by the following:

"A person who suffers damage on the surface caused by an a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t or by any person or th ing f a l l i n g therefrom s h a l l no t be en t i t l ed t o s e t up any claim f o r damage against the operator, the owner o r any person l i a b l e under Art ic le 3, otherwise than a s expressly provided i n t h i s Convention, nor s h a l l he be e n t i t l e d t o s e t up any claim against t h e i r respective servants o r agents except i n the case where such serv- a n t or agent i s gu i l ty of an a c t or onission done with i n t e n t t o cause danage .'

I t a l y This Art ic le seems t o be superfluous; i n case it i s not retained

i n i t s present form it should be broadened t o cover a l l the danage considered by the d r a f t , including even the case of Ar t ic le 4,

United Kingdom I n order t o br ing this Art ic le i r t o l i n e with Ar t ic le 12(1) the

f u l l s t o p should be changed t o a comma and the following words added:

%nless such a c t or omission was done with the object of avoiding greater damagen.

I A T I - The Mexico City d r a f t properly i ncorpora t e s provisions excluding

l i a b i l i t y of the operator, owner, lessee, or t h e i r respective servants and agents otherwise than a s expressly provided i n the Convention, However, Art ic le 9 r a i s e s a ser ious problem i n t h a t it f a i l s t o c l a r i f y t he s i t ua t ion where the person suffer ing damage has proceeded not aga ins t the operator of the a i r c r a f t bu t against a person performing the ground services for the a i r c r a f t whom the l a t t e r has agreed t o indemnify. 0 e ra to r s of a i rpo r t s , both governmental and otherwise, a r e increasingly requi r f. ng operators of a i r c r a f t t o give them broad indemnities against such l i a b i l i t y a s a condition of the r i g h t t o use the a i r p o r t and have the advantage of i t s ground-handling organization, As a r e su l t , by

Document no IV Ch, I

proceeding aga ins t t he person performing service on the ground, a claimant might i n d i r e c t l y require the operator t o pay damage i n excess of the Convention limits - thus removing the chief j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the operators accepting t h e p r inc ip le of absolute l i a b i l i t y - namely, assurance t h a t t he l i a b i l i t y w i l l not exceed the Convention l i m i t s . Also from the standpoint of the claimant it seems unjust and improper t h a t t he amount of recovery might vary a s between one case where t he operator performs ground services i t s e l f and another i n which these se rv ices a r e performed f o r the operator by a t h i r d person,

The f i n a l words "except i n t he case of such a person who i s gu i l t y of an a c t o r omission done with i n t e n t t o cause damagew should be deleted a s superfluous and a p t t o cause confusion. The l i a b i l i t y of such a person is d e a l t with i n Ar t i c l e 12. Such a person i s l i a b l e i n accordance with the Convention although not having the bene f i t s of the l im i t a t i on of l i a b i l i t y .

See comments under "Article 4(1)t t .

Ar t i c le 10 a Netherlands

Add t o Ar t ic le 10 the words:

"subject t o the provisions of Ar t ic le 11".

( ~ o t e : See a l s o comments of t he Netherlands on Ar t ic le 7.)

E X T E N T O F L I A B I L I T Y

Art ic le 11.(l) I Austral ia .

I n favour of Council Proposal A,

Belgium With respect t o the problem of l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y , the Belgian

services p re fe r solut ion B proposed i n paragraph (26) of the comments of the Council s ince they consider t h i s t o be the most log ica l , equitable and coherent solut ion, Nevertheless, j u s t a s it has done up t o now, Belgium would wi l l ing ly support any other eventual intermediate so lu t ion between t h a t proposed by Mexico and t h a t proposed i n B of the aforementioned paragraph (26). The e s sen t i a l th ing f o r Belgium i n t h i s matter i s t h a t the Convention be adhered t o by the g rea tes t number of Sta tes .

B raz i l Solution B proposed i n paragraph (26) of the comments of the ICU

Council i s the most equitable, However, the Brazi l ian Delegation w i l l wi l l ingly support any other intermediate solut ion between t h a t adopted a t Mexico City and t h a t found i n P ~ o p o s a l B of the Council,

Canada Canada bel ieves t h a t t he limits a s proposed in Ar t ic le l l ( 1 ) would

no t a f fo rd an adequate l e v e l of compensation i n a l l normal cases of accident t o t h i r d p a r t i e s on the surface; it f e e l s t h a t these l i m i t s should be subs tan t ia l ly increased and could be so increased without, placing an unreasonable burden on a i r c r a f t operators. The higher l i m i t s suggested under Proposal B i n the comments by the CouncEl on t he d r a f t Convention would, i n the Canadian view, s t r i k e a more equi table balance between the i n t e r e s t s of the respective p a r t i e s and accordingly, Canada would recommend t h a t they be adopted. I n t he i n t e r e s t of w n i m i t y , however, Canada i s prepared t o accept a scale of l i m i t s a t some intermediate l e v e l between those contained i n the present d r a f t and those suggestdd under Proposal B e

Document no HIV Ch" II

Denmark The Danish Government i s i n pr inciple i n favour of the present,

t ex t , I% can, however, i n view of the f a c t s of t h e case, accept Proposal B of the Co~mei%,

Fra nee The e s sen t i a l aim of A r t i e l e il of the d r a f t prepaTed by the Lega l

Committee i s t o e s t ab l i sh a l imi ta t ion of l i a b i l i t y varying^ with the ;eight of the a i r c r a f t . If, up t o the present, most d fsas te rs have been wholly regulated without t h i s l imi ta t ion being applied, and i f , consequently, the Art ic le is r a r e ly applied, it is no l e s s t rue t h a t it should have e f f e c t i n the case of an excep- CfonalBy serfsue accident,

The increase i n the weight of a i r c r a f t w i l l bring about an appreei- able increase i n the r i sks . The Rome Convention, signed i n 1933, established t h i s ceiP%ng a t 2,000,000 franes fo r all . a i r c r a f t of 8 ions or more, Thfs solu- t ion , which was a t t h a t time technically acceptable, was changed by the Legal CommitLee which established the new ce i l i ng a t ar, amount f i ve times greater f o r a weight considerably muPtiplied by nine. It cannot be s ta ted t h a t such a ce i l - i ng w i l l be su f f i c i en t i n i t s turn i n some yearsP time, this bringing about, should the ease a r i s e , new work on revi.sion,

That i s why, on taking int.o account the arguments of the Council with regard t o the discont inui ty a t the l eve l of 2,008 kflogramms, Lhe progres- sion of the lfmitatfon beyond 74 tons ~ h o u l d not .be stopped,

Replace A r t i e i e U ( 1 ) by the f ollowfng text :

"Subject t o the provisions of Art ic les 12 and 13, the PiabiPfty fo r damage contemplated i n AstieYe 1, fo r each a i r c r a f t and incident i n respect of a l l persons Piable under t h i s Con stLon, sha l l no t exceed:

(a) 500,000 francs fo r a i r c r a f t weighing 2,000 ki2ogramn;es or less;

(b) 500,000 francs plus 250 francs per kf 9cgmmme aver 2,000 kflogrammss for a fxeraf t weighing more than 2,000 kPlogrammes but not exceeding 6,030 kf lcgrammes;

( c $ 1,500,000 f ~ a n c s plus 22.5 francs per kiln,spamme ?or a i r c r a f t weighing more than 6,000 k i l~gr"amtues~~~

In favour of Council Proposal A ,

Pakistan A s r emrds the sca les of l i a b i l r t y l i m i t s , the Governnen.t of

Pakis t rn supports t i e proposal t o r e t a i n the g&ierel l e v e l of l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y provided i n the Mexico City d r a f t , subject t o the elinifnation of the discontfnn- i t y a t the 2,000 kf lopmme leve l , I t i s accordingly suggested t h a t the fsllaw- ing may be substftuted for subparagraph (b) i n paraqraph (1) of Article l h of the Mexico City draf t :

"(b) 500,000 franes plus 250 francs per kilogramme over 2,000 kilogrammes f o r a i r c r a f t weighfng more than 2,000 but not axceedlng 6,000 k i lsgrammes .

Spa i n These limtts, which const i tute security f o r compensation of the

damage, ought t o be based on s double consideration: (1) they must be high enough t o permit of effect ive compensation of the damage suffered; (2) they should not be s a t so high a s t o become a burden which vi1L render d i f f i c u l t the development of interna ti onal civT.1 aviat ion,

Document no PV Ch, I1

I n the report of the Council there a r e wisely collected both the fac tua l elements contained i n the s t a t i s t i c a l data compiled, and the reasons which a r e t o serve a s a complete i l l u s t r a t i o n f o r the States , i n order t o reach the most adequate solut%on,

The eonclusions of the Council on t h i s point permit one t o hold tha t an increase i n the li mits establf shed i n the d r a f t would not mean an i ntol- erable increase i n the burdens of a i r navigation, and, therefore, t h i s increase should be favoured since it would permit of the enjoyment of greater sa fe ty since there would be due compensation f o r damage,

To resume t h i s section, we consider Proposal B f o r the amendment of Art ic le 11 of the d r a f t t o be acceptable f o r the same reasons a s those on which the proposal i s based,

Unfted Kingdom The limits of l i a b i l i t y provided f o r i n Art ic le P l of the d r a f t

Convention a r e considered t o be suf f fc fen t ly high and the United Kingdom would be unable t o accept any fur ther increase, The United Kingdom supports Proposal A i n paragraph (26) of the Council of I C A O D s comments on the d r a f t Convention, Under t h i s proposal there would be subst i tuted f o r Art ic le l l ( l ) ( b ) the foPlowing words :

n500,000 francs plus 250 francs per kilogramme over 2,000 kilogrammes for a i r c r a f t weighing more than 2,000 bnt not exceeding 6,000 kilogrammesn,

Uni ted S ta tes First proposal: The United S ta t e s consider^ the l i m i t s i n the

d r a f t Convention en t i r e ly inadequate, While the United S ta tes generally sup- por ts the method of r e l a t i ng l imi ta t ions of l i a b i l i t y t o weight a s s e t f o r t h fn Council Proposal B p it believes the m a x i m u m limits s e t fo r th therein a r e f a r too low in respect t o present day heavy a i r c r a f t , The United S ta tes w i l l therefore urge the adoption of Council Proposal. B, amended so t h a t the l i a b i l i t y curve w i Pl reach 22,500,000 francs f o r a i r e r a f t weighing 70,000 k i P@zgrammea,

Second proposal: The United S ta t e s i s of the view t h a t the prfn- c f p l reasor: f o r l imit ing l i a b i l i t y of the operator i n this Convention i s t o protect the l a t t e r against catastrophic? r i sk , Any l imi ta t ion of PfabflPty toward innocent persons on the surface wMeh i s materially less than the operator0 s investment i n the equipment appears t o the United S ta t e s Delegation t o be inadequate and t o t a l l y unresponsive t o the Convention" primary purpose, The l fmfts i n the or igfnal Rome Convention were closely re la ted t o the value of the a i r c r a f t then current ly i n use, and i n the Geneva Convention on the In te rna t iona l Recogni- t i on of Rights i n Aircraft (194.23) a t e s t of the Itvalue when newtR of the a i r c r a f t was used a s the c r i t e r ion f o r adequacy of insurance carr ied, For these reasons, the United S ta t e s believes t h a t the l eve l of the limits provided i n t h i s Conven- t i on should correspond more c losely t o the value, when new of the a i r c r a f t involved, For a i r c r a f t weighing 90,000 kilogrammes t h i s f igure would approximate 22,600,000 gold francs, I n atstaining this l i m i t the United S ta t e s Delegation believes t h a t Council Proposal B offers a more sui table method than Proposal 8L or the present t ex t , Proposal B should of course be adjusted so t h a t the 1iaGf.l- i t y curve w i l l reach 22,500,000 for a i r c r a f t weighing 70,000 kflogrammea, Thus the United S ta t e s w i l l propose t h a t Article 1 l ( l ) (a ) , (b) and (c ) be revfsed a s f ollows x

"(a) 500,000 francs f o r a i r c r a f t weighing 1,000 kilogrammes or l e s s ;

(b) 500,000 francs plus 400 francs per kilogramme over f,000 kdlo- grammes for a i r c r a f t weighing more than PgOOO, but not exceeding 6,000 kilogrammes;

(e l 2,580,000 francs plus 300 francs per kilogramme over 6,000 ki logrammes for a i r c r a f t wei ghfng more than 6,000 kilogrammes* ,

Document no IV Ch, I1

FA1 - The Federation has already wri t ten t o your Organization an t h i s

subject and has expressed i t s views on the e f f e c t of the Convention on private p i l o t s and a i r c r a f t owners, i f it goes through a s a t present draf ted,

We have pointed out t h a t the limits of l i a b i l i t y which have been fixed f o r the small a i r c r a f t a r e out of a l l proportion t o the r i s k of damage which can be caused by the average l i g h t aeroplane and we a re very interested t o read i n Appendix 3 t o the Comments of the ICAO Council on the Mexico City d r a f t t h a t our views a re completely supported by the examples given of accidents t o a i r c r a f t of 2,000 kilogrammes or l e s s ,

There a r e s i x accidents quoted. The damages paid varied from 9425 f rancs f o r the l e a s t ser ious t o 205,063 francs fo r the most serious accident. I n the l a s t accident there were 11 people k i l l ed and several injured, The a i r - c r a f t which was a RAF tlAudaxlt Trainer crashed i n t o houses. We can hardly conceive of a more ser ious accident with a s ing le engine l i g h t aeroplane,

None of the awards made i n the s i x cases quoted amounted to 258,008 francs; we assume t h a t a11 the f igures given a r e i n gold francs which of course r e t a i n t h e i r value. These gold francs t ransla ted i n t o present day currencies represent very large sums of money and the pr ivate aeroplane owner has t o pay in paper francs, pounds, e t c ,

It would be understandable i f a high l i m i t were placed on l i g h t aeroplanes which indulged i n acrobat ics over crowds or over towns or which took p a r t i n races which involved f ly ing over crowds. For such events, a spec ia l insurance could be required and the l i m i t could be high but, f o r ordinary pr ivate f l y ing between aerodromes and over the countryside, the l i m i t of 500,000 francs is too high and should be reduced by a t l e a s t a half .

Gliders which no one could c a l l a meance should not be included i n the Convention; the Aero Clubs a r e capable of looking a f t e r the question of insurance so f a r a s t h i s type of a i r c r a f t i s concerned.

There a r e many more people k i l l e d by motor cars every year than by pr iva te aeroplanes bu t some countries do not even require the motor car d r iver t o be insured f o r t h i r d par ty r i s k s , Let us protect the person on the ground, but l e t us keep a sense of proportion so f a r a s the l i g h t aeroplane i s concerned,

There i s no doubt t h a t the case fo r the l i g h t aeroplane i s inf lu- enced by t h a t of the t ransport aeroplane, The main nat ional a i r t ransport companies which, probably without exception, receive f i nanc ia l support from t h e i r Governments can look upon the payment of l a rge sums of money f o r insurance premiums with more equanimity than the pr ivate aeroplane owner o r the pr ivate a i r t ranspor t company because, fo r many of the a i r l i n e s the d e f i c i t f o r a year is paid from the public purse.

We rea l i ze t h a t these companies do not wish t o pay more than they must, but they can a t l e a s t f a l l back upon public funds, whereas t h i s i s not so f o r the pr iva te owner,

Ffnally, w e would r e f e r again t o a point which we put t o the PCAO i n a long memorand m which we sen t i n 1950, concerning the award which a court i s l i k e l y t o make.yl) There i s no doubt t h a t the existence of an insurance policy and a high limit of respons ib i l i ty can lead the courts t o make greater awards

('1 The re levant ex t r ac t from the memorandum of FA1 of November 1950 i s a s follows:

"Experience has shown t h a t when the court has t o dea l with a claim by an injured t h i r d par ty against an individual who may be ruined by a heavy adverse verdict , its sympathies a r e equally divided. When however the law t o be applied incorporates a top limit of l i a b i l i t y , and especial ly when it is known t h a t insurance ex i s t s , the sympathy of t he court i s na tura l ly with the injured p l a i n t i f f , tt

Document no I V Ch, IT.

than they would i f the re were no insurance pol icy o r only a pol icy f o r a small amount, This tendency can, and probably w i l l , mean t h a t heavy awards w i l l be given and t h e cos t of insurance w i l l r i s e .

The posi t ion of p r iva te av ia t ion i s d i f f i c u l t enough today without the addi t ion of f u r the r burdens. I f the present proposed limits a r e maintained i n the Convention, t he FBI warns the Organization t h a t t he e f f e c t w i l l probably be t o decrease t he number of p r iva te owners and p i l o t s and br ing about a general d i d n u t i o n a l l round of world p r iva te avia t ion, This w i l l have an i nd i r ec t de- t e r r a n t e f f e c t upon the spread of airmindedness and on t he de s i r e t o t r a v e l by af r ,

Any fu r the r cu t t i ng down of the a c t i v i t i e s of p r iva te av ia t ion w i l l a l s o dirnfnish the a c t i v i t i e s of a i r c r a f t m ~ t ~ f a c t u r e r s and of a l l those firms who make engines and p a r t s f o r t he pr ivate aeroplane; t h i s industry, a t l e a s t i n Europe, i s not a healthy one, b u t it i s s t i l l a l i v e and it must be maintained,

Attached t o p r iva te av ia t ion a r e a whole l o t of subsfdiary a c t i v i - t i e s whfch a l l c rea te employment bu t which w i l l disappear i f p r iva te av ia t ion d i sappears ,

IATA has ca re fu l ly considered t h e views nut forward when the Mexico City d r a f t was being considered-and l a t e r when it was Geviewed i n the Council of I C A O , It i s believed t h a t t he l i m i t s presented a t Mexico City and incorporated i n the d r a f t a r e f a i r and reasonable and represent a compromise between many con- f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s , I t i s f e l t t h a t they should be min ta ined ,

I n s e r t i n t he second l i n e a f t e r the word "damagen t he words " t o Dersons and property" so t h a t the re may be no possible implication t h a t B r t i - c l e I l ( 2 )

p i v a t e l y l i a b i l i t y and would

c rea tes an add i t iona l l i a b i l i t y f o r death or i n ju ry t o t h e person,

It seems t o be generally accepted t h a t (except i n the case of small owned a i r c r a f t ) the premium r a t e s a t present charged f o r t h i rd par ty insurance represent a small percentage s f the t o t a l operating costs , s t i l l be small even on t he b a s i s of the high l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y pro-

posed by the Convention, The IUAX wishes, however, t o express a few words of caution i n t h i s respect , The t h i r d par ty r a t e s a r e a t present admittedly a t a low leve l , d u e t o the absence u n t i l r ecen t ly of neavy claims caused on the surface by c i v i l av ia t ion , According t o t he d e t a i l s published i n t he Comments of the ICAO Council on t h e Mexico City d r a f t the major d i s a s t e r s were a t t r i b u t a b l e t o mi l i t a ry a i r c r a f t , There a re , however, no grounds f o r hoping t h a t c i v i l av ia t lon w i l l continue t o enjoy such a fgvourable experience, and recen t cases may we11 be taken a s a warning s igna l , Bearing i n mind the l imi ted spread of the r i s k , increased losses f a l l i n g i n the fu ture on the insurance market might well have considerable e f f e c t upon r a t e s , The sane warning holds good a s t o the e f fec t of fu iu re claims under the Cunvention, which i n i t s present form i s ca lm- Pated t o lead t o increased claims owing t o the wide nature of the r i g h t s given t o claimants and the lack of almost any defence, protection, or scope f o r negotia- t i o n accorded 'o the defendant,

It i s t he normal p rac t ice of owners of l a rge premises t o insure against a i r c r a f t 6amage, which can be done a t a nominal cost owing t o the wide spread of the r i s k and other f a c t m s , so t h a t it i s r e a l l y the small property otrner, who may well have neglected t h i s precaution, whose i n t e r e s t s should be pa r t i cu l a r l y considered. Eearing these points I n mind the I U A I bel ieves t h a t the proposed l i m i t s , a t any r a t e fcr property damage, could be subs tan t ia l ly reduced without ser ious r i s k of hardship t o property owners, and with decreased r i s k of imposing an unecomonic burden on c i v i l avia t ion, Such a s t e p might a l s o lead t o the adoption of the Convention r u l e s on a wider nat ional and i n t e r - na t iona l bas is , s ince the limits a t present pronosed must seem very high t o many of the S t a t e s concerned,

The I U A I supports the views expressed by t he representa t ive of the FA1 and FITAP a s t o the d e s i r a b i l i t y of reducing the limits f oi- l i g h t aeroplanes and g l iders t o 300,000 go16 francs, f o r the reason aimad: s t a t ed by t he repre- senba t i v e i n deba t,e .

As regards the remaining l i m i t s , the I U U f ee l s tha t this b e.sssn- t i a l l y a matter f m the Conference, I n c r s W lLm%%s w i l l nomnal3.y mean ~~ insurance cost, especially f o r the smaller operator, The extent of the increase w i l l depend on clafms experience, which w i l l in turn depend t o some extent an t2se measures prodded by the Conventfon fo r the protection of the operator against claims of a fraudulen% or exaggerated natwe. (see commentcs belaw on A,z%b.ehs l-2 and 20,)

Australia Favours a sub-Pi m i % of 200,OCH3 francs f o r loss of life or p x ~ m a l

injury but would 'be prepared t o accept (only a s a &ter of c q d s e ) up t o 3OO,OOO Francs,

Canada Canada f inds diM"EcuZw with %he prwfs9Lan owtained Sn 18rtiel-e lZ(2).

One of the win objwtives of this Ccmmntfm i s t o a t m e over-all or global l imitat ion so t ha t the p r a t e r might know with cel%ahQ & a t t h e tap TLgme af his I f a b f k i ~ 9s going t o be i n anj one aecidtpnt, P persolral l i m i t appears to be outside this objective and @a.ma& bePievee t h a t it wonEd be mw.im t o impose it t o the d e t f i w n t of the fnnouent victim em %he surface, Canada suggelstra, there- f m e , tha t it be deleted,

France No l imitat ion within %he Pimitation should be established with

respect t o rtompensatfrm fo r bodily EnjurSas9, Delete B r t i c l e 1%(2).

N e t h e ~ b n d g A 8 Sk is "the 5n'tentSon of t he Cumvention t o l5nni.t the ~eelly cata-

strophic risks by f ixing Urnits, it -ems incorrect t o f i x withfn t h e general Y i m r f t s ano-bbr limit for personal f n j ~ 4 . y ~ TMs l i m i t should be deletiedo

"If the t o t a l claims f o r Boss of l i f e and personal injury estabuehed exceeds the t&a% sum .amf k b l e TOT p p n t under paragraph (1) af A r t i c b , then the l % & a i t y i n mspect af l o s s sf l i f e m personal b&ry shall not exceea 380,000 francs per p o n ki l led ar .in3"U'8d9 u n t i l a l l claims up t o tha t amount have 'been sati lafiedOn

IDA1 - The inePusfon of sub-Pitnits per e a ~ i t a and far property damage as

suggested br Argentina stad ~Australf-a i$ eommcm prac%i ce i n exis t ing irrsurancef, and wodd -tend t o e f m i z e fncmaeed insurance costs,

N e therlanda It would be advisable t o adopt the wording as proposed by the Sub-

committee lWa~aawN of the Legal Committee f o r inclusion i n the Warsaw CmV81If,ion0 The iol l .ming should then be added t o paragraph ( 4 ) :

*a% the rate of exchange effective on the date of juttgmen% or %ha

(1) For additional t ex t see Beport of the Committee on Article 11(4) i n Documenf, No VI of this Vblume, page 2U,

; Document no IV Ch, I1 - 134 =>

date when the settlement of the claim is agreedn,

Uni ted Sta teq The United S ta t e s w i l l urge the a d d i t i on of the following language

a t the end of the l a s t sentence of t h i s paragraph:

Itat the r a t e of exchange e f fec t ive on the date of judgment or the date on which agreement on settlement i s reached",

4ny r ed ra f t of t h i s Ar t ic le whfch encourages attempts t o "'break the ConventionN would, i n the view of the IUAI, l a rge ly destroy the p rac t i ca l value of %he Csnvention, The point does not d i r e c t l y regard i n s u r e ~ s , since they a m o t o f f e r unlimited cover, The unlimited l i a b i l i t y , therefore, would f a l l on the operator or, i n the case of a nationalized a i r l i n e , on the Govern- ment concerned. So long a s the burden of prosf f a l e f t with the operator, he w i l l always run the r i s k of unlimited l i a b i l i t y f o r the a c t s of his servants,

AustraPi a Favours the pr inciple of the vicarious l i a b i l i t y of the operator

fo r a del iberate a c t of agent or servant done with i n t en t t o cause damage without benef i t of l i m i t s unless the operator proves t h a t the a c t i s one without h i s express authori ty ,

The provi sfon concernfng damage done w i t h In ten t t o avoid greater damage i s considered m e a l and should be omitted from Art ic le 12(~), I f the pr inciple i s included, however, it should also appear i n Article 9,

The f irst pa r t of paragraph (1) i s acceptable since it establ ishes ?a unlimited l i abf Pi ty i n the ease of w i l f u l misconduct ( t tdol t t )o However, the

Brazi l ian Delegation i s of the opinion t h a t i t should be modified i n such a way t h a t the notf on of wil ful misconduct a l s o w i l l include the ease of "dangerous wi l fu l m%sconducttt a case i n whhh the sperator and h i s servants or agents t t v o h n t a r i l y assume the r i s k of causing damagett. I n t h i s case, l i a b i l i t y should be unlimited,

The Art ic le i n question deals only with "direct wflful misconductn, which can be defined a s the t t w i l l directed towards the attainment of an end or a spec i f ic r e su l tn . Mo~eover, there is a r e a l contradiction i n the def in i t ion proposed ("a del iberate a c t or omission of the operator, done with the in ten t t o cause damaget9), f o r it seems t o be evident tht the concept of ttde%iberaten nscessarfly includes the concept of wintent ionw,

I n a i r Paw, d i r e c t w3lfn9 misconduct 5s exceptional and very r a r e (BOPP~, "Abordage A&rienu, No, 118)~ and it i s prae t ica l ly impossible to prove i t s existence. The adoption of the t e x t of the d r a f t would eons%ftute a prfvf- lege f o r the a i r l i n e s t o the detriment of %he victims who would have an imaginary and i l l u so ry r igh t .

I n addit ion, it should be noted t h a t the modern tendency of law i n the case of c i v i l l i a b i l i t y i s directed towards protecting the victims a s f a r a s possible, I n r e a l i t y , nei ther the operator, nor h i s servants or agents a c t s with the intent ion of causing the damage, Nevertheless, by disobeying a i r navigation sMety rules , they might increase the normal r i s k s of f l i g h t , thua cre- a t i ng a sf t ua t f on which could i n no way favour the operator and h i s servants or agents,

Document no %V Ch, I1

Xn br i e f , w i l f i l misconduct i n a i r law can never be dfreet or specif ic wilful misconduct. It must take the form of wdangerous w i l f u l misson- duct1# i n which the operator and h i s servants or agents only voluntarily assume the r i s k of causing damage. The voluntary assumption of the r i s k of' causing damage const i tutes i n i t s e l f a subjective element which penal law characterizes a s being an act of wi l fu l misconduct. I n t h i s f i e ld , a i r law should follow the pr inciples of penal law,

Replace Article l 2 ( l ) by the following text :

"(1) 1 f the person who suffers damage proves tha t it was caused by a del iberate a c t or omission of the operator, h i s servants or agents, done with in t en t t o cause damage, or t h a t the operator, h i s servants or agents foresaw tha t damage would probably r e s u l t a s a consequence of a c t s or omissions contrary t o a i r nalrfgation safety rules , the l i a b i l i t y of the operator sha l l be unlimited, unless such a c t or omission was done wfth the object of avoiding greater damage, .,"

Denmark %t is suggested t h a t this provision be mplaaed by the following:

"If the parson suffer ing damage proves t h a t it was eaused or con- t r ibuted t o by an a c t or omissi on of the operator, done with in t en t t o cause damage, the l i a b i l i t y of the operator s h a l l be unlimited unless such a c t or omission was done with the object of avoiding greater damage ."

This phrasing avoids the l imitat ion contained i n the provision of the d r a f t "'by a del iberate a c t or omissionN, the scope of whi ch seems problematic when a t the same time it i s l a i d down t h a t the a c t or omfssion s h a l l be done with " intent t o cause damagew. Besides, unlimited l i a b i l i t y of the operator i s proposed, not only in cases where servants or agents were act ing on the operatorss express authokity, but a l s o where the operator, wfth in t en t t o cause damage, has otherwise conttributed t o servantsg o r agents1 a c t s or omissions,

FPance It appears t h a t t hem is no reason f o r exempting the operator from

unlimited l i a b i l i t y i n the case where he has not given h i s authori ty fo r the a c t or ornission causing the damage, Consequently, the l a s t three l i n e s of the paragraph should be deleted beginning with the words unless, i n the case of an a c t or omission of the servants or agents concerned ...",

On the other hand, the nature of the a c t s or omissions which fnvolve the suppreesion of the l imitat ion should be spec i f ica l ly qualified.

I t a l y F i r s t proposal: To amend the f i n a l sentence t o read a s follows:

a , , , or unless ... the operator proves t h a t he has taken a11 proper measures t o avoid the damage or t h a t it was impossible fo r him t o take such measures .,

I n t h i s way any reference t o the case of au%hority, which cannot be considered i n t h i s regard, i s avoided, since it is not conceivable t h a t there would be authori ty t o commit a fraudulent action.

Second proposal: To replace Art ic le 12 ( l ) by the following text :

'"If the person who suf fers damage proves tha t it was caused by a del iberate a c t or omission of the operator, h i s servants or agents, wfth a foresight (or certaiatp) of the damage or wfth the intent ion of bringing aboua damage, $he l i a b i l i t y of the operator s h a l l be un- l imited unless, i n the case of an a c t or omissfon of the servants or agents concerned, he proves tha t he was unable t o prevent such a c t or omissionon

Document no FV -- Ch, %.I

Nomw - The Norwegi .an Government cann lot f ind it j u s t t h a t t he operator

s h a l l have unlimited l i a b f l i t y f o r damage caused in ten t iona l ly by h i s servants o r agents, unless he has himself fn ten t f onal ly contributed t o the damage by orders o r otherwise.

Further the word !ldeliberateU ought t o be dele ted a s being too r e s t r i c t i v e ; c f r , Ar t ic le 9,

The following wording i s proposed:

" I f the pergon who s u f f e r s damage proves t h a t it was caused or eon- trfbu'ted t.2 by an a c t or omission of t h e operator, done w i t h i n t e n t t o cause damge, h i s l i a b i l i t y s h a l l be rulIl.mited, m i e s s such a c t o r omfs- d o n w s s done with t he object of avoidfng grea te r damageOtt

Spa in We r e f e r t o t he defence es tabl ished for t he bene f i t of t he opera-

t o r whespaSy he proves, i n order t o avclcl. unlinlft.ed l i a b i l i t y , t h a t the a c t s of h i s rezvants o r a p n t s dont w i t h i n t e n t t o cause darnage, were done without h i s express a u t h ~ r f ty, We consider t h i s p i n c % p l e t c be unwise, s ince the unlimitsd 4.9ah~Lity of the operator, En t h i s case, should not r e s u l t from h l s r o l e a s t he princi:p% sf h i s ssrvants o r agents, 5 u t from h i s r o l e a s co-author, s ince it is evident tmt, ?hen he gives express author it.^ t h a t the a c t causing the damage be c s m i t t e d , k f s conduct takes on a form of authorship. On the o t h e ~ hand, there s h o ~ l i e be pc ln t e l eut the dffi"4culty which the operator ha3 i n many cases t o Senef ib f'roa t ha t defence,, which involves proof, always very d i f f i c u l t , of a nsgatipie f s c t , and f o r that reason t h i s provision would have no e f f e c t , Lastly, we coi~sfrW* tt;at theye a r e not su f f f c f en t reasons f o r t h i s defence, s ince the operator mgh t .to be l i a b l e i n svery case f o r the a c t s of his servants or agents done i n the e x e r d s e of t h e i r fanct ions9 chat pr inciple being the one incorporated i n Ar t ic le 15, *ragraph ( 7 ) of t,hs new draft , of the Warsaw Convention, d ra f ted in P a r i s i n t he month of January l a s t , and it does not appear t o be j u s t i f i ed t o f"o91ow in -fnternatSonaP law d l fQeren t d i r ec t i ve s on the same matter,

Tksrefore, i f i s o w opfxilm t h a t Art3.cle 12 should be amended so a s t o deiets t h a t defence of the operator,

Sweden ThSs paragraph seems too res t r . i c t ioe , ss the a c t o r omission causing

the damage h.as not only to be done wlth i n t en t .to cause damage, which is correct , buL has a l s o t o be de l ibera te , On the other hand, the scope of the paragraph i s too wide, where it implies t h a t an operator cannot escape unlimited l i a b i l i t y i n the case of an a c t or omission of his servants o r agents, i f he cannot prove t h a t it was done without h i s express authori ty, When it i s proved t h a t the operator f s an accessary, h i s l i a b i l i t y shotrld be unlfmf.tsd, otherwise not ,

Unitqed S t a t e s -. The Lnited S t a t e s w i 11 urge the dalet ioo of the phrase, l%.ml.sss

such a c t o r omission was done with the object of avoiding greater damaget2, because 5.t i s believed unnecessaryn A persor, seeking t o minimize d a m p i s ne t "fnterldmg t o cause darsge" in the view of t he United S t a t e s Delegation,

IATA - Art ic le 12(1) of the Mexico Ci ty d ra f t , dealing with the ciscum-

stances i n which recovery m ~ g h t exceed %he specified l f d t s , f a b a s i s from the standpoint of the operator, It -9s essantl .al t h a t t h i s provision be l imi ted t o cases where the operator has hfmselr taken ac t ton with i n t e n t t o cause damage, or has espec ia l ly authorized h i s servant or agent t o do so, a s s t a t ed in the Mexico Cf zy dra f t , Any weakening of t h i s language would lead t o a s i t ua t i on i n which claimants would uniformly seek recover:\- i n excess of the Piinits, and t he objectives of the Convention t o provide absolute, bu t l imited, respons ib i l i ty and t o svof d expensive li ti ga tic11 would be c i rcumvented ,

Document a0 Pq Ch, II

Denmark It is suggested t h a t the provfsi on be formulated a s follows:

"The l i a b i l i t y of the user of an a i r e r a f t , referred t o i n Art ic le 4421, s h a l l be unlimited unless he nei ther knew nor ought t o know t h a t he had no r i g h t t o use the a i r c r a f t o n

f iance Replace Art ic le 12(2) by the fo l lowhg text :

nIf a person wrongfully takes and makes use of an a i r c r a f t without the consent of the person e n t i t l e d t o use it, the l i a b i l i t y of the user s h a l l be unlimitedow

France and United Kingdom a e p h c e the present t e x t by the following:

"If a person wrongfully takes or fraudulently converts an a i r c r a f t and uses it without the consent of the person en t i t l ed t o use it, his l i a b i l i t y s h a l l be unlimitedon

I s r a e l We suggest t h a t the words "takes andq8 should be deleted, since the

present d r a f t would not cover such eases a s those of a ba i lee who makes use of an a i r c r a f t without authority,

N o m y It should be made c lear t ha t t h i s paragraph r e fe r s on ly , to persona

mentioned i n Art ic le ~ ( 2 4 and t h a t l P ~ o n g f o r l l y l h e a n s t h a t they knew or ought t o have known t h a t $hey had no r i g h t t o use the afreraf%,

I ATB - The present language taken l i t e r a l l y might be so construed t h a t a

person who leased o r purchased an a i r e r a f% might have unlimited l i a b i l i t y i f some other person had previously contracted wfth the owner f o r Pease or purehaise, and t h i s although the person who had taken possessf an of the a i r e r a f t did not even how of the adverse claim, Sueh a r e s u l t could Aardly have been intended, The words wwithout the consent of the person e n t i t l e d t o use it" should -therefore be deleted and replaced by the words nwithont the consent of the owner or other person en t i t l ed t o use itn,

I t a l y Thi s paragraph does not provide f o r the case of damage intentional.-

l y caused by one of the persons l i ab l e ; i n the case covered by Art ic le 12, the persons suffer ing damage can claim unlin-dted ap,ompensation, and, consequently, the r e s t r i c t i o n s e t out i n the l a s t sentence of the paragraph cannot be applied i n every case.

France Taking i n t o account the comment on Art ic le '7, t h i s paragraph should

read a s follows:

When damage fo r whi ch a rf ght of eompensati on i s @anted by Art ic le P has been caused by two o r more a i r c r a f t , t he person who su f f e r s the damage s h a l l ,..n

For addi t ional t ex t s see the Report of the Committee on Art ic les 7 and 1312) i n Document NO VI of this ~olLme, paget

1

I Document no I V I

Ch, I1

Replace Ar t ic le 13(2) by the f oPlowfng tex t :

"(1) When damage f o r which a r i ght of compensation i s granted by Ar t ic le 1 has been caused by two or more a i r c r a f t , t he operators of t he a i r c r a f t concerned s h a l l be j o in t l y and severa l ly l i a b l e t o t h i r d p a r t i e s on t he surface who have the r i g h t t o compensation, up t o t he aggregate of t he limits appl icable t o each of the a i r c r a f t i nvolved .

"(2) Nevertheless, each operator s h a l l be bound t o pay only up t o the l i m i t s applicable t o h i s a i r c r a f t under Art ic le 11, unless h i s l i a b i P i ty i s unlimited under A r t i c l e l2 (1) ,

"(3) The l i a b i l i t y of the operator of an a i r c r a f t which a f t e r a coPlisfon continues i t s f l i g h t and does not d i r e c t l y cause damage on the surface, s h a l l not be governed by t h i s ConventfonOw

(Note: This proposal involves the combining of Ar t ic les 7 and 13,)

IATA - ab ove ,

BePete the paragraph i f Art ic le 7 i s redraf ted a s recommended

Australia Replace Art ic le 14 by t h e fo81owing tex t s

" I f t he t o t a l claims established exceed the l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y appl i - cable under t he preceding Art ic les , the claims s h a l l be reduced, so t h a t such limit is not exceeded, i n accordenee with the law of the place where the damage occurred,

(Note: This i s a l a t e r Australian proposal than t he one shown under Ar t ic le ~ ( b ) .)

Ar ~ e n t i n a The Delegation of Argsntina proposes t h a t subparagraph (b) of

Ar t ic le 1 L of t he d r a f t be amended a s follows:

" I f the clafms a r e both i n respect of l o s s of l i f e or personal in ju ry and i n respect of damage t o property, one-third of t he t o t a l sum d is t r ibu tab le s h a l l be appropriated t o meet claims i n respect of" l o s s of property, and the remaining two-thirds s h a l l be appropriated t o meet claims i n respect of l o s s caused t o persons, If there i s a surplus i n e i t h e r of t he two cases, t he remainder s h a l l be d i s t r i bu t ed proportionaPly among the unsa t i s f i ed ~ l a i m a n t s , ~ ~

This d r a f t is proposed with the in ten t ion of obtaining greater c l a r i t y , s ince it is considered more equitable t o have a d i s t r i bu t i on of one- t h i r d f o r property and two-thirds f o r persons because of the d i s t i n c t economic value i n each case, It should be borne i n mind t h a t a physical object has a present value, while a person has a present or fu tu re value,

Austra l i a Assuming t h a t the s ing le forum jur i sd ic t ion i s adopted, it is con-

t s idered t h a t when t he limits a r e exceeded, the question of giving a preference t o personal claims should be l e f t t o domestie law.

Documeni no IV Ch. I1

IATd 7

The words "one-half of the t o t a l sum d is t r ibu tab len , i n the second l i ne , should be deleted and replaced by the words "such portion of the t o t a l sum d is t r ibu tab le a s s h a l l be necessary, not, however, exceeding cne-half of such sumtP. If t h i s change i s not made, the paragraph could be construed so t h a t one- half of the t o t a l limits of l i a b i l i t y i n any par t icu la r case would be appropriated t o pay personal injury claims even though t h a t sum were not needed i n f ac t , thus improperly reducing the amount avai lable f o r the payment of property damage claims.

CHAF'TER I11

S E C U R I T Y F O R 0 P E R A T O R " ' S L I A B I L I T Y

Denmark Againat the c r i t i c i sm made by several S t a t e s on the Chapter a s a

whole the Danish Government would wish t o point out t h a t the Chapter i s an irnpor- t a n t and valuable pa r t of the d r a f t and t h a t the delet ion thereof would be a grave mistake.

Norway The Norwegian Government agrees i n substance t o the provisions rn

secur i ty f o r opera tor t s l i a b i l i t y and, reserving fur ther consideration, takes a favourable a t t i t u d e t o the comments of the Council.

Sweden The most important improve~mts i n the t ex t , which were arrived a t

i n Mexico City, concern chapter 111- secur i ty fo r operators s l i a b i l i t y , The provisions of this chapter seem t o provide a victim with a pmper securi ty a s regards the damage caused t o him. However, many Delega-Lions objected. t o cer ta in p a r t s of t h i s chapter, and even suggested the e n t i r e chapter should be deleted, From the Swedish pofnt of view, t h i s chapter does not present the bes t possible solut ion and some modification would seem desirable. The re tent ion of the chapter is, however, considered essen t ia l , and it would cer ta in ly prove an unfoy- tilnate mistake t o de le te it.

Uni ted S ta t e s F i r s t proposal: The United S ta tes Delegation w i l l urge t h a t

Chapter I11 of the present d r a f t Convention be eliminated, I n the view of the Government of the United States , t h i s chapter dealing with insurance requirements i s not necessary or desirable i n a convention designed t o es tab l i sh pr inciples and l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y , and presents highly controversial issues which may ser iously impede widespread r a t i f i c a t i o n of the Convention. The method of dealing wfth burdensome insurance requirements, i f there is need f o r one, can be handled a s a separate matter, namely, by means of a spec ia l convention dealing wfth insurance requirements or otherwise,

Second proposal: The United S ta t e s firmly bel ieves t h a t the insurance provfsions i n the d r a f t Convention would place an intolerable adminis- t r a t i v e burden on the S t a t e of Registry of the a i r c r a f t and would cons t i tu te an undue l imi ta t ion on S ta t e s overflown i n protect ing t h e i r c i t i zens on the ground, For these reasons and i n view of the f a c t t h a t the insurance provisions a re completely unnecessary t o the Convention a s a whole, the United S ta tes Delegation w i l l move the elimination of Chapter 111.

Alternatively, the United S ta t e s w i l l urge cer ta in amendments t o Chapter I11 (see below).

Australia I n order t o prevent unduly onerous requirements the Convention

should a s f a r a s consis tent with the j u s t claims of victims limit the conditions r e l a t i ng t o insurance which S ta t e s may impose.

Document no IV Ch, 111

B deductfble clause would be acceptable i f l imited t o a small percentage (say 3%) of the applfcable limit of f%abf l i ty ,

Brazf 1 The proposals of the ICAO Council a r e generally acceptable,

Denmark I n i t s comments on the d r a f t Convention the Council has suggested

cer tain m o d i f f a t i ons i n Article 15, These modffi cations a re i n general aecept- able t o the Danish Government,

France After studying the various formulas f o r protection analyzed i n the

Council documents, it appears tha t the guarantees provided i n the Legal Committee d r a f t do not suffice and run the r i s k of b e b g f l lusory,

With a vfew t o &tigat ing this dfsadvantage, three solutions can be contemplated:

(a ) p re fe rabu to mfnMfn the fo~mufsr wM&~ based on the w r k of the SubcomSttee on th ie matter, prsvidee t ha t t h e S ta te of Registry w i n guarantee the f inancia l respons%bi&ft;y of the insurer and h i s a b i l i t y t o s e t t l e the damages h the currency oP the S ta te i n the t e r r i t o r y of which the damage occurred;

(b) furthermore, the Internat50naP Cf v f l Aviati on Organf z a t i on could be asked t o intervene i n the verif icat ion of the ab f l f ty sf the insurer chosen t o carry out a l l his obligations;

( c ) i f one of these solutions is not adopted, then it should again be considered whether or not &he Sta tes overflown should be l e f t fPee t o decide whether subject t o the terms of the Convention the secur i t ies of the foreign operators overflying t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s a re effect ive or not.

I s r a e l The use of an a i r c r a f t by an unlawful user, (Articles 4 ( 2 ) and

~2(2)) where the person ent i t led t o fts control has taken proper measures t o prevent such use, appears t o create some insurance di%fiaul t ies , The person injured could only claim a g a b s t the unlawful user, but, the l i a b i l f t y of the unlawful user would not be covered by the insurance policy issued t o the lawful operator, This polfoy wwJd normaPly mver srrJg Uabf&.ftfas of the lawful opera t o r and persons us$ ng the a i r e r a i t w f fafet eonaent ,

I n respect af the unlawful usgr it is dWffcul t t o see how Artf c le 15(1) could be complied wfth,

Spa i n AS the report of the ICAO Council sa well e ta tes , i n order t h a t

the insurance my give f u l l securi ty the insurer must be f i n a n c b l l y sound and it mst be possible far the compensation t o be paid i n the cumency of the country of the viet9m. Article 15 purports t o wive the f i r s t question; and Art ic le 26, the second,

The Council i n i t s comments on the d r a f t Convention has suggested cer ta in modifications of Article 3.5, The Swedish Government is, i n general, agreeable t o these modi f f -ti ons,

1 UB9 - The IUAI i s i n general agreement wfth the revised d ra f t proposed

by the Uni ted Kingdom (see United Kingdom tex t under the var i ous headings of


Australia Insurance requirements should be permissive,

I s r a e l The suggestion made i n paragraph (35) of Comments by the Council on

the Mexico City d r a f t appears, fo r the reasons given i n paragraph (34), preferable t o the proposal i n the present d ra f t ,

I t a l y Replace Article 15(1) by Article 12(1) of the Rome Convention of

1933.

United Kingdom F i r s t proposal: Amendments t o paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 15

a re desfrable i n order t o f i t i n with the defini t ion of ttoperatorn contained i n the Convention, The exis t ing wording r e f l e c t s the s i tua t ion when the operator was the person *in controlt1 of the a i r c r a f t , Now, however, the word nope~atorM includes the nunlawful usern under A r t i c l e ~ ( 2 ) and the shor t term lessee under Art ic le 3. It i s not thought tha t insurers would desire t o insure the l i a b i l i t y of e i the r of these persons and consequently it should be considered suf f ic ien t i f insurance i s provided t o cover the l i a b i l i t y of the "owner" under Article 4(2) or the lessor under Article 3.

Replace Article 15(1) by the following text :

"(1) Any Contracting S ta t e may require tha t payment of compensation i n respect of damage contemplated i n Article 1 caused i n i t s t e r r i t o r y by a i r c r a f t registered i n another Contracting Sta te s h a l l be secured by means of insurance up t o the l imi t applicable according t o the provisions of Article l l .*

Second proposal: Replace Article 15(1) by the following tex t : 4

"(1) Any Contracting Sta te may require t h a t the operator of an a i r - c r a f t registered i n another Contracting S ta t e sha l l be secured i n respect of h i s l i a b i l i t y f o r damage contemplated i n Art ic le 1 sustained i n its t e r r i t o r y by means of insurance up t o the l imi t applicable according t o the provisions of Article 11."

United Sta tes F i r s t proposal: Replace Article 15(1) by the following text :

"(1) Any Contracting Sta te may require, within the l i m i t s provided f o r i n Article 11, t h a t insurance be carried f o r P iab i l i t y resu l t ing under t h i s Convention from the operation of foreign a i r c r a f t over i t s terr i tory.*

Second proposal: Replace. Article 15(1) by the following t e x t :

lV(P) Any Contracting S ta t e may require t h a t the operator of an a i r c r a f t regis tered i n another Contracting Sta te s h a l l be secured i n respect of h i s l i a b f l i t y a s operator or otherwise f o r damage contemplated i n Article 1 sustained i n i t s t e r r i t o r y by means of insurance up t o the l imi t applicable according t o the provisions of Article 11; and i n any case where the operator does not have the exclusive r i g h t t o use the a i r c r a f t fo r a period of a t l e a s t 14 days, the person from whom his r igh t t o use the a i r c r a f t was derived may a l s o be required t o be secured by insurance i n respect of h is l i a b i l i t y under Article 3 ."

Australia The S ta t e overflown should be able t o refuse an insurance issued

by an insurer domiciled i n a non-Contracting State.

Document no IV Ch. 11%

Canada F i r s t proposal: It is the Canadian view t h a t the S t a t e o v e r f l m

should be permitted a l l reasonable means t o s a t i s f y i t s e l f t h a t an overflying i s adequately insured, Canada believes t h a t the provisions contained i n Art ic le ~5(2) place an unreasonable l imi ta t ion on the requirements t h a t S t a t e s might impose i n t ha t regard and, therefore, f inds the present d r a f t unacceptable. It endorses the Council Resolution of December 6, 1950, concerning multiple insurance requirements, a s it f e e l s t h a t the recommendations contained therein a r e qu i te adequate f o r the purposes of t h i s Convention, As an a l te rna t ive , Canada would recommend t h a t the present d r a f t be modified so a s t o indicate t h a t the S t a t e overflown w i l l be s a t i s f i e d by a c e r t i f i c a t e of e f fec t ive insurance from the insurer himself coupled with a c e r t i f i c a t e a s t o the insurer ' s f inanc ia l responsibi l i ty from h i s S ta te of domicile.

Second proposal: Add t o paragraph 2(b) of the United Kingdom proposal the following:

nProvPded t h a t i n the event the S t a t e overflown has any reasonable doubt a s t o the f inanc ia l respons ib i l i ty of the insurer, t h a t S ta te may require addi t icnal evidence of f inanc ia l responsibil i ty.*

D enrna rk I t is suggested t h a t Art ic le 15(2) should apply only t o insurers

or groups of insurers belonging t o a ContractAng Sta te ,

Replace Article 15(2) by the following tex t :

"The insurance s h a l l be deemed sa t i s fac tory i f it conforms t o the provisions of t h i s Convention and has been effected by an insurer, or group of insurers, recognized by the Internat ional Civf l Aviation Organization and authorized or permitted under the laws of the S ta te where the a i r c r a f t i s regis tered . . , ( the remainder without change) ,"

I t a l y F i r s t proposal: Add a t the end of the paragraph:

!I.., and whose f inanc ia l responsfbiZIty bas been ver i f ied by t h a t S t a t e a t the moment of authorizat ionon

Second proposal: Add a t the end of the paragraph the following words :

" a d which must be included i n a l i s t approved and established by 16k0,"

I n t h i s case, the S t a t e overflown should not have any r i g h t t o verify.

Uni ted Kinpdom See comment under Article 15(1),

Replace Art ic le 15(2) by the following text :

" ( 2 ) The insurance s h a l l be deemed sat isfactory:

a) f f it secures payment of compensation by each person l i a b l e a s an operator under the terms of t h i s Convention, provided t h a t , i n cases where l i a b f l i t y may a r i s e under Article 3 or Article 4 ( 2 ) , i t s h a l l be sufficient i f it secures such payment by a t l e a s t one of the persons referred t o i n each of t he said Articles, and

(b) i f it conforms t o the provisf ons of t h i s Convention and has been effected by an insurer or group of insurers authorized or permitted under the Laws of the S ta te where the insurer or group of insurers have h is o r i t s pr incipal place of business t o e f f ec t such insuranev and whose f inanc ia l competence has ,been ver i f ied by t h a t State ,"

Document no %V Ch. 111

Uni ted S ta t e s Replace ArtPcle 15(2) by the following text :

"(2) The insurance s h a l l be deemed sa t i s fac tory i f i t conforms t o the provisions of this Convention and has been effected by s f inanc ia l ly responsible insurer, or group of insurers, authorized or permitted under the laws of the S ta te where the a i r c r a f t i s regis tered t o e f f e c t such i n s u r a n ~ e , ~

IAT& - The f i n a l words of t h i s paragraph, "and whose financial. responsi-

b i l i t y has been ver i f ied by t h a t State", should be deleted, T h i s provi sf sc may cause very serious prac t ioe l administrative d i f f i c u l t i e s , It is f e l t , t h a t the remainder of the paragraph will amply protect a l l concerned, If a S t a t e has authorized or permitted an insurer or group of insurers t o do business and write insurance i n sueh S ta te , t h i s ought t o be ample evidence t o a l l other S t a t e s can- cerned without requiring special ce r t i f i ca t ion a s t o the f inanc ia l s t a tu s of sueh insurer a t any par t icu la r time,

If these words a r e not deleted, the paragraph should be expanded by adding a t the end the words lgor by the S ta te under the laws of which the insurer or group of insurers is domiciledtt together with a provision such a s t h a t suggested En the ICAO CouncilBs Resolution of December 6, 1950 t h a t where a S ta te has no regulatory powers i n insurance matters, the ve r i f i ca t f on should be by the highest p o U t i e a l subdivision thereof "having such powers. These changes a r e deemed necessary i n order t o avoid the d i f f f e u l t and perhaps impsss ib~e adminis- t r a t i v e problems i n cer ta in Statesp such a s the United S ta tes , where the federa l government does not regulate insurers although the individual p o l i t i c a l un i t s of the United S ta t e s have such pauers, The suggested language w i l l ~31s~ provide f o r the case where a S t a t e has no administyativa machinery t o c e r t i f y the finan- c i a l respons ib i l i ty of a foreign insurer ,

IUAI - Paragraph (2) (a) of the Uni ted Kingdom proposal &see above) should

read :

" i f it secures payment of compensation by the ~ p e i % t o ~ under the terms and within the limfts of thSs Contvent i~n.~~

AS regards the qual i f icat ions of insurers, the T U U believes that operators should be given a s f ree a choice a s possible and t h a t the ConventLon should not be used (and w i l l not be practicable i f used) a s a means of enforcing na t iona l insuranee.

Australia favours the princfple of an a l t e rna t ive securi ty in 'the form of cash deposit or bank guarantee (subject t o the provisions of 8rt icl .e 17) .

Australia a l s o favours the pr inciple of a S ta te guarantee ( o r self- insurance where the a i r l i n e i s operated by the S ta te ) coupled wfth a provfaicln i n the Convention t h a t where a S t a t e i s sues a gumanfee or a c t s a s a sel f - insurer f o r the purposes of the Convention f t undertakes t o waive sovereign immunity.

Braz i l The two subsidiary forms of s e e w i t y a r e not p rac t ica l , In

accordance with the point of view already expressed by i t s Delegates i n the I C A O Legal Committee, the Brazi l ian Government i s of the opinion t h a t insurance should be the only form of guarantee admitted,

Canada F i r s t u r o ~ o s a l r With regard tb the two a l te rna t ive forms of

secur i ty mentioned ii A&icle 15(3), nei ther one appears t o be prac t ica l wiing t o the la rge sum of money t h a t would have t o be deposited or guaranteed by a bank; i n any event, Canada holds the view tbt there should a l s o be provided a s

Ch, III

an a l t e rna t ive t o insurance a guarantee by the St

France _n__

e of the a i r c r a f t u s r eg i s t ry , The inclusion of this 6dditfona-l form of secur i ty would not mean t h a t this guarantee should always be given but merely tha t , i f it were, it would be deemed sa t i s f ac to ry by other States .

Second proposal: Add a new subparagraph t o paragraph (3) a s follows:

"(c) A guarantee given by the S t a t e where the a i r c r a f t is regis tered,

Replace Art ic le 15(3) by the followfng text :

ltInstead of insurance, the guarantee of the S t a t e where the a i r - c r a f t f a regis tered s h a l l be deemed sa t i s f ac to ryew (The remainder t o be deleted,)

United Kindom and United S ta t e s Adopt k t f c l e 15(3) of the b x i e o Cfty draft,

L Art ic le 15(a

Australia favours the prfncf ple t h a t S t a t e s may require :

(a) a c e r t i f i c a t e from the St,ate of Registry cer t i fy ing t h a t insurance has been effected i n accordance with the Convention by an insurer authorized under the laws of t h a t S t a t e t o e f f e c t such insurance and, if the insurer f a domiciled i n t h a t S ta te , t h a t i t s f inanc ia l Pespon- s i b f l f t y has been ver i f ied by t h a t State ; and

(b) i f the insurer i s not domiciled in the S ta te of Rsgistny, a fur ther c e r t i f i c a t e from the S t a t e of domicile of the insurer a s t o h i s s t a t u s of f fnancial competence;

provided always, t h a t the S t a t e overflown may refuse t o accept insurance issued by an insurer domiciled i n a non-Contracting S ta te ,

It 9s considered inappropriate t o include forms of Insurance cer- t i f i c a t e s i n the Convention,

Braz i l The provisfon concerning the model c e r t i f i e a b should be deleted,

It does not seem t o be appropriate t o adopt models or f o r m aa annexes t o a convention, I n f ac t , such a procedure would make it d f f f t e u l t t o amend the model c e r t i f i c a t e i n accordance with the d i c t a t e s of experience,

It would be preferable t h a t the Convention give the ICAO Council the competence t o choose and adopt a model c e r t i f i c a t e fo r the use of S t a t e s pa r t i e s t o the Convention,

Ca na dq Canada does not agree with the provision suggested f n Article 15(4)

and believes t h a t it would be very unwise t o incorporate f n the Convention the form t h a t the c e r t i f i c a t e of insurance should take, It is, therefore, recommended t h a t t h i s provision be deleted,

Replace A r t i c l e 15 (4) by the f ollowing text :

"The S ta te overflown may require t h a t the a i r c r a f t s h a l l carry a ce r t i f i ca t e , countersigned by the Secretary General of ICAO, issued by the appropriate authori ty of the S t a t e where the a i r c r a f t i s registered cer t i fy ing tbt insurance has been effected i n accordance with paragraph (2) of t h i s Article, or t h a t the guarantee prescribed i n paragraph (3) has been given; unless a cer t f f i ed copy,, ,m, ( the remainder without change),

Document no I V Ch. 111

Spain The Council c a l l s a t t en t ion t o the system adopted by Art ic le 15 t o

c e r t i f y the f inanc ia l responsibi l i ty of the insurer, and r igh t ly s t a t e s t h a t there w i l l be d i f f i c u l t i e s fo r the S ta te of Registry i f the insurer is not domi- c i led i n it, and therefore proposes t h a t the S t a t e of domicile of the insurer c e r t i f y the f inanc ia l responsibi l i ty of the l a t t e r .

This solution w i l l , doubtless, overcome the d i f f i c u l t i e s pointed out by the Council, and there would be no objection t o r a i s e against the amendment proposed on t h i s point. Nevertheless, there could be d i f f i c u l t i e s when the S t a t e of domicile of the insurer i s not a Contracting S ta te , a case which could not a r i s e under the present t ex t , since every time the Convention enters i n t o play, it w i l l be because the S t a t e of Registry i s a l s o a Contracting S ta te .

The problem a s t o whether the c e r t i f i c a t e should be issued by the insurer himself and accompanied by another c e r t i f i c a t e e s t a b l i shing h is f inanc ia l respons ib i l i ty issued by the S ta te , or whether, on the contrary, the provision of Art ic le 1 5 on t h i s point should be maintained, is not of great importance and e i t h e r of the two solutions would be acceptable, Nevertheless, the proposal of the Council appears t o have greater p rac t i ca l advantages because of i t s simplicity.

United Kingdom The United Kingdom agrees with the opinion of the Council expressed

i n paragraphs (34) t o (37) of the Council's comments t h a t there a r e p rac t i ca l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the provisions of Ar t ic le 15 concerning the ver i f ica t ion by the S t a t e of Regi s t r y of the existence of sa t i s fac tory insurance and the f i nanc ia l competence of the insurer , The United Kingdom supports the Councilfs suggestion t h a t Art ic le 15 should be modified t o indicate t h a t S ta tes should accept a c e r t i f - i c a t e from the insurer of an overflying a i r c r a f t t o the e f f e c t t h a t the a i r c r a f t i s insured according t o the Convention, together with a c e r t i f i c a t e from the S t a t e of domicile of the insurer a s t o h i s s t a tu s and f inanc ia l competence.

The United Kingdom i s unable t o regard a s sa t i s fac tory a c e r t i f i c a t e of insurance i n the form shown i n the Annex t o the d r a f t Convention which a t t aches the insurance t o the a i r c r a f t i r respec t ive of who the operator may be. A c e r t i f - i c a t e i n this form would remain val id even though the a i r c r a f t were operated by an operator unknown t o the insurer f o r purposes not contemplated by the insurer, This would place the insurer v i r t u a l l y i n the posit ion of insuring an unknown r i sk , and it is not believed t h a t insurers w i l l be wi l l ing t o do business on such a bas i s , It i s consfdered t h a t the c e r t i f i c a t e should be so amended a s t o cover the a i r c r a f t only when it is operated by a named operator.

Replace Art ic le 15(4) by the following text :

" ( 4 ) The S ta t e overflown may a l s o require t h a t the a i r c r a f t s h a l l carry a c e r t i f i c a t e issued by the insurer o r group of insurers t h a t insurance has been effected i n accordance with the provisions of t h i s Convention and specifying the person or persons whose l i a b i l i t y is secured thereby, accompanied by o r endorsed with a c e r t i f i c a t e issued by the appropriate authori ty of the S ta te , where the insurer or group of insurer have h i s o r i t s pr inc ipa l place of business, ver i fy ing h i s or i t s f inanc ia l competence. If other securi ty i s furnished i n accordance with the provisions of paragraph (3) of t h i s Art ic le a c e r t i f i c a t e t o t h a t e f f ec t s h a l l be issued by the appropriate au thor i ty of the S ta te where the a i r c r a f t i s regis tered, The forms of such c e r t i f i c a t e a r e s e t out i n the Annex of this Convention.I1


Proposed r e d r a f t of a c e r t i f i c a t e of insurance, a c e r t i f i c a t e of f i nanc i a l competence and a c e r t i f i c a t e of deposi t or guarantee.

CERTIFICATE OF f NSURANCE

..................................... I T I S HEREBY CERTIFIED t h a t of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 d 0 0 0 D 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ .............. i s duly insured i n respect of t h e a i r c r a f t with Registered Number f o r the period from ......e.....o........O... e O e D ~ t o , o D o D ~ O O ~ O o ~ ~ ~ ~ e o . . ~ ~ e ~ e . ~ . , f o r f l i g h t s by the sa id a i r c r a f t over t he following t e r r i t 9 r i e s (o r within t he following t e r r i t o r i a l l im i t s ) namely:-,,.. .................~...................e. aga ins t the r i s k s of l i a b i l i t y contemplated by the Convention on Damge caused by Foreign Ai rc ra f t t o Third P a r t i e s on the Surface signed a t .,.........o...o..... on the .....O.............~...O.....O....~. day of ~ee.e~~eee.eocoecee..oa019~09 i n accordance with the provisions, and up t o the limit specif ied i n Ar t ic le 11, of t he sa id Convention e s appropriate t o t he safd a i r c r a f t , by t h e undermentioned Insure r or Group of Insure rs authorized or permitted t o e f f e c t such insurance by the laws of the S t a t e where such Insurer or Group of Insure rs has h i s or i t s ordinary residence or p r inc ipa l place of business, and whose f i nanc i a l competence t o meet claims has been ve r i f i ed by t h a t S ta te ,

Date o o o o o a o c o n . o . o o

Place ........,e.ooasoo.soaa

Signed ........................ .................... on behalf of ( Authorf zed or permitted Insurer o r

Group of Insurers) .

CERTIFICATE OF FINANCIAL COMPETENCE TO BE ENDORSED ON OR ANNEXED TO THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE

I T IS HEHEBY CERTIFIED .....................O.................O... of ........0.0..............O.......O......................... i s an Insurer or Group of Insurers authorized o r permitted by the laws of t he S t a t e where such Insurer or Group of Insure rs has h i s o r i t s ordinary residence or p r inc ipa l place of business t o e f f e c t t h e insurance referred t o i n the Ce r t i f i c a t e of Insurance, and thtst; the f inanc ia l competence of the sa id Insurer or Group of Insurers t o meet claims has been ve r i f i ed ,

Date ................. Signed .......................O Place O.......O............ ( ~ n Authorized Of f i c i a l on behalf Stamp o ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ o o e ~ ~ o e ~ ~ ~ o a ~ o s of . ~ ~ O e O O O ~ e * O E O . ~ e O O . . . . U )

( s t a t e where the Insure r or Group of Insure rs has h i s or i t s ordinary residence or p r inc ipa l place of business) .

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT OR G U A R Q h S - IT IS HEREBY CERTIFTED t h a t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O ~ . . ~ . . O e ~ u . . s a

of ~ ~ O O O O d O 0 O O O J ~ O O O O O O d O O O O D ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ ~ O D O O O O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O ~ ~ ~ O O S ~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~

a s Operator of t h e a i r c r a f t with Registered Number .............O......O..O..... has (a) made a cask deposEt i n a depository maintained by the S t a t e where t he a i r - c r a f t i s register'ed o r with a bank duly authorized or permitted t 6 a c t a s a depoai- t o ry by t h a t S ta te ; o r (b) has obtained a guarantee from a bank authorized o r permitted by such S t a t e t o give t he same, covering the sa id operator aga ins t t he r i s k s of l i a b i l i t y contemplated by the Convention on Damge caused by Foreign Aircraf t t o Third P a r t i e s on the Surface sfgned a t ...O........e.... on t h e ..O........O. day of . a c e o e o e a o o o o . o o o o ~ . D 195.0.9 f o r f l%gh t s by the sa id a i r c r a f t over the following ...................... t e r r i t o r i e s ( o r within the followicg t e r r f t o r i a l l im i t s ) : Eooo ........................... e . . . O . . . O . O . O . O O O . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . f o r t he period frcm t o .o..OO.................O. i n accordance with the provisions, and up t o the l i m i t s specif ied i n Ar t ic le 11, of t he safd Convention a s appropriate t o the sa id a i r c r a f t .

Signed .. . . . . . . . . . .OO. . . .O. .e .OO. . . .

(An Authorized O f f i c i a l on behalf of o e o o o e e o e o o o e e e . e e o o o o e o o o o e o o e o e )

(3 hats of Registry of the Aircraf t )

Document I V Ch, IIX

United S ta t e s Replace Art ic le 15(4) by the foPlowfng text:

" ( 4 ) The S t a t e overflown may a l s o require t h a t the a i r c r a f t s h a l l carry an insurance c e r t i f i c a t e issued by the insurer or group of insurers or, i n the ease of other secur i t i es , documentation issued by the appro- p r i a t e authori ty of the S t a t e where the a i r c r a f t is registered, cer t i fy- i ng t h a t the securi ty has been f'urnished, unless the insurance c e r t i f - i c a t e or the doeumentation concerning the securi ty has been f i l e d with the appropriate authori ty t o be designated by the S t a t e t o be entered,"

IATA - IATA i s a t i l f of the opinion t h a t the S ta te of Registry of the a i r -

c r a f t , and not the S t a t e flown over, should have power a s t o the qua l i f ica t ions of insurers , The general theory of the Chicago Convention i s t h a t S t a t e s flown over look t o the S t a t e of Regfstry t o supervise matters such a s the airworthiness of the a i r c r a f t and the competence of the crew, The same pr inciples should be followed i n the case of inauranee, I n general, IATA f e e l s t h a t the Convention should not s e t out t he form of the c e r t i f i c a t e of insurance, bu t should merely be su f f i c i en t ly spec i f ic as t o the eharacter and contents of any c e r t i f i c a t e t o be required so a s t o insure against any S ta t e imposing onerous requirements a s t o the c e r t i f i cate ,

As t o the c e r t i f i c a t e t o be carr ied by the a i r c r a f t , IATA f e e l s t h a t the ICAO Council has made valuable suggestions i n paragraphs (34) - (37) of the CounciPQs comments, IATA concurs in the view t h a t the form of the c e r t i f i c a t e ought not t o be incorporated i n the Convention. IATA a l s o f e e l s t h a t the c e r t i f - i c a t e should be issued by the insurer and t h a t the ver i fying S ta te might indicate i t s approval e i t he r by endorsement on the c e r t i f i c a t e i t s e l f or by general no t i f i - cation t o other S t a t e s who a r e pa r t i e s t o the Convention. Perhaps it might be useful t o provide fo r the f i l l n g of c e r t i f i c a t e s with I C A O which could no t i fy a l l Member S ta tes , thus avoiding the necessity of multiple f i l i n g by operators whose services extent i n t o a great number of S t a t e s ,

A s r e m r d s the ce r t i f f ca t e of insuranca9 the PUAI supports the form suggested by the united Kf ngdom Dele@ ti an, but f e e l s - t h a t f o r the- reasons given by the Council of I C A O (paragraph (38) of the C m e f l u s comments) t he c e r t i f i c a t e should only be incorporated i n the Convention a s a recommended form fo r the guidance of Contracting S ta tes ,

Brazi l , United Kingdom a& United Sta tes Renumber Art ic le 15(5) of the Mexico City d r a f t t o read

t lArticle 15(6)" and i n s e r t a new Art ic le 15(5) thus:

(5) N o t 4 thatandfag any ~equirement imposed under paragraph ( 4 ) of t h i s Article, the c e r t i f i c a t e these mentioned need not be carr ied on the a i r c r a f t i f a ce r t i f i ed copy has been f i l e d with the appropriate authori ty designated by the S t a t e overflownov~

Brazi l , United Kingdom and United S ta t e s Renumber Arti e l e 15(5) of the Mexico City d r a f t t o read

nAr t ic le 15(6)n0

Ch, I I P

The Delegation of Argentina proposes t o amend Art ic le 16( l ) (a ) , by . " -

changing the expression "shal l be continued i n force u n t i l the next landing supervi sed by public authori t y . . . t o read l lshal l be continued i n force &ti1 the next landing f o r which provision i s made in the f l i g h t plan, but no longer than 2& h o u ~ s ~ ' ,

The present d r a f t is confused and i s open t o an i n f i n i t e number of p o s s i b i l i t i e s according t o which it could not be decided with cer ta in ty whether the protection afforded by the insurance i s continued.

The defences avai lable t o an insurer should be l imited a s i n A r t % c l e 16,

Denmark Replace the words "only the following defencestt by Itthe following

def encesu

I s r a e l I n Art ic le 16( l ) (a ) , i n view of the importance t h a t may a t t ach t o

the time element, it should be made c lear whether no t i f i ca t ion r e f e r s t o despatch o r rece ip t ,

The words -only the following defencesn exclude the insurer from a11 defences which a r e not a k i l a b l e t o t h e operator against the thfrd party or admitted by the provi sions under (a) and (b), Consequently the insurer cannot s e t up against the t h i rd party any defence r e l a t i ng t o the va l id i ty or resolva- bfPfty of the insurance contract , I n order t o prevent doubt on t h f s point an express provision was added i n the Brussels Protocol, Art ic le 1, paragraph (2); see gracbs-verbaux of Fourth Internat ional Conference on Pr iva te A i r Law, 193g9 Vol, I, ppo 35-369 42 and 98-100. For the same reason it i s proposed t o r e in se r t the said addition.

It i s evident t h a t the whole of t h i s peragraph deals only with contracts concluded by the insurer , Consequently it i s apen t o him t o s t a t e t h a t the contract produced by the claimant i s f a l s e or f a l s i f i e d ,

Unf ted Kf ngdom If the Uhfted Kingdom proposal fo r the new t e x t of Art ic le 15

(submi t t ed p r i or t o the conference) i s accepted the words "of insurancen should be added a f t e r the word ' lcert i f i ca te t t i n A r t i c l e l 6 ( l ) (a),

XUAI - The I U A I strongly urges t h a t Article 16(1) be deleted and t h a t the

orf g ina l corresponding wording of the Brussels Insurance Protocol ( ~ r t i c l e 1 ) be restored, t h a t i s t o say:

"The insurer or other party providing securi ty f o r the l i a b i l i t y of the operator, may i n addit ion t o the defences avai lable t o the operator and without prejudice t o any recourse he m y have against the par ty insured, guaranteed or indemnified, interpose only the following defences against claims based on the application of t h i s ConventionQn

- Artic le 16

proposed new paragraph (2)

Denmark Inse r t a new paragraph (2) a s follows:

"(2) Excepting the above mentioned defenceg and the case of forgery, the insurer or other par ty providing securi ty may not with respect t o t h i rd par t ies a v a i l himself on any grounds of n u l l i t y or of any r igh t of eaneellatf on," (Cf. the Brussels Protocol, Artf e l e l ( 2 ) )

and renumber (3) the present paragraph (2).

Document no IT: Ch, 111

Reinsert Artf c l e l ( 2 ) of t h e Brussels Protocol, thus:-

"Excepting the above-mentioned defences, the fnsurer s h a l l not, with respect t o t h i rd pa r t i e s , a v a i l himself of any pian of n u l l i t y or of any ri ght sf se%roac t i ve eaneel la t f on."

Unf ted S t a t e s The United S t a t e s Delegation w i l l support a proposal t o i n s e r t

Ar t ic le l ( 2 ) of t he Brussels P r o t m o l a s an add i t iona l paragrsph,

If the Conference a e c e p t . ~ t h e United S t a t e s g proposal m Art ic le 15, t he United S t a t e s Delegation w i l l move t h a t t he no t i f i c a t i on of t e rn ina t ion required of the insure r be s en t t o t h e S t a t e overflown, and t h a t the insurance remain i n e f f e c t t he r ea f t e r f o r a period of 5 days,

Austral ia There should be a d i r e c t r i g h t of recourse against the insure r in

the spec ia l s i t ua t i ons oovered i n ~ r t i c ~ e - 3 . 6 and a l s o when-the vict im has an un- s a t i s f i e d judgment aga ins t t he operator,

Denmark Add in Article 16(2) (which, according t o the proposal of Dsnmrk,

would become k r t r c l e 16(3)) a f t e r t he words taundez- %he prevlsiuas of paragraph (I)" t he words "and paragraph (2)",

I t a l v Since this Artfc le e s t a b l i s b s the p r inc ip le of direct ae t ton of

t h e person suf fe r ing damage aga ins t t he insure r , it would be more proper t o say so expressly by means of a ge1leraL arid not tl aunditfanal. formula, as i nd ica ted i n paragraph (2). I n this same paragraph, s ~ b s t l c u t e FOP the word tulfabSliryxP (of t he i n s u ~ e r o r g u a r a n t ~ r ) ~ the word 'Pcabligat,kontP.

United Kingdom I n s e r t t he words "e i ther oftP af'tes the words ''3.iabPlfiy of"',

I U A I -- l f ab f P i t i e s

While the I U B I agrees t h a t from the practical point 3f b l e w t h e imposed by t he Convention should be adequately e ~ a r a n t s e d ~ , it r e c a l l s

t h a t t h i s pa r t i cu l a r problem was very f u l l y discussed folPowing thd signature af the o r ig ina l Rome Convention, and t h a t a f t e r prci1mge.d n e g o t k t i o n s between the Governments and t he Insurance I n t e r e s t s involved, al; Insurence pro%oeol t a t h ~ Rome Convention was s f gned a t Brussels Pn 1938, During a l l t he 3arly debaxes of the Legal Committee of ICAO on t he rev i s ion of the Ccnvent,fon it bras agreed t h a t t h e wording of the Brussels Protocol should be maintained, buS d u r x g the f i n a l stages, t he terms of t he Protocol. were d r a s t f c a l l y amended s o a s t o permrt a d i r e c t r i g h t of a c t i on aga ins t t he fnsurer i n a foreign cour t i n ce r t a in c i r - cumstances, caupled with the app l ica t ion of the insurance t o the a j r c m f t , es d i s t i n c t from the operator, Although many concess ims weye made by insure rs during t he negot ia t ions which led up t o t he Brussels Protocol, these twc points were matters on which they f e l t obliged t o stand f i rm a s a matter of sound underwriting pract ice . It i s t r u e t h a t some countr ies permjtt %n t h e i r c a t l ona i laws a d i r e c t r i g h t of ac t ion by t h i r d p a r t i e s 8gaSnst insure rs , I n many coun- t r f e s , however, thf s d i r e o t 15 ght of a c t i on i s unknown and the ineorpora t i o n , .sc an i n t e rna t i ona l ba s i s , of a s t i pu l a t i on which up t o now has been r e s t r i c t e d t o the na t iona l l e g i s l a t i o n of a l imi ted number of States, may well provoke in manly countr ies res i s tance aga ins t the r a t i f i c a t i o n of the Convention,

It i s appreciated t h a t these Conventions have the double purpose of p ro tec t ing the insured aga ins t f i nanc i a l losses ihrough accidents and of giving t he in jured t h i r d par ty the @rantee t h a t he a c t u a l l y nDeceives t h e

Dqcument no IV Ch. 111

indemnity which is due t o him. This end could, however, be achieved i n a form which would r a i s e l e s s objections than the d i r e c t r i g h t of action, namely by granting t o the injured th i rd par ty a Pfen upon the claim which the insured has against h i s i nsurer a s already provided by many nat ional l eg i s l a t f ons.

I f such a clause be introduced i n the Convention, there i s no reason why the a g ~ e e d s t ipu la t ions of the Brussels Xnsurance Protocol of 1938 should not i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y be res tored i n the new Convention.

The I U A I s trongly urges t h a t i n Ar t ic le P6(2) the reference t o I1paragaph (1) of t h i s Art ic len should be amended t o read "paragraph ( l ) ( a ) and (b) of t h i s Articlefl,

The I U A I i s strongly opposed t o a d i r e c t r i g h t of act ion of the t h i r d par ty (who i s not a par ty t o the insurance contract) and bel ieves t h a t h i s r i g h t s would be adgquately protected i f the Convention: (a) gives h i m a p re fe ren t ia l l i e n on any insurance claim, and (b) subrogates him t o the r i g h t s of the insured i n respect of any unsa t i s f ied judgment, The operator w i l l i n most cases have an of f ice or representat ive t o defend his i n t e r e s t s i n the country where the damage i s caused and the proce~dings a r e b ~ o ~ g h t , The insurer may have ne i ther and t o compel him t o defend d i r e c t act ions abroad would serfous- l y and unnecessarily increase the cos t of insurance, If, however, the Conference i n s f s t s on maintaining the r i g h t of d i r e c t ac t iong then amendments along the l i n e s proposed is e s sen t i a l i n order t o make it c l ea r t h a t t h i s r i g h t i s l imited t o the spec ia l eases mentioned i n Art ic le 16 ( l ) ( a ) and (b) and has no general epplfca- ti an.

NO commente.

Denmark I n s e r t Ar t ic le P(3) of t he Brussels Protocol, thus:

"(3) I n case the operator i s changed during the period of insurance contract , the insurer s h a l l reuiain l i a b l e t o injured thfxd pa r t i e s a s if no t r ans fe r had taken place, provided t h a t the duration of such obliga- t i o n s h a l l no t extend beyond seven days from the time when the insurer n o t i f i e s the competent au thor i ty of the S t a t e where the insurance ce r t f f - i e a t e was issued t h a t the insurance has expired,"

This pravrsion contains a valuable protection f o r the t h i r d par ty suffer ing damge, the l i a b i l i t y of the insurer being continued within ce r t a in limits, notwithstanding the f a c t t h a t a change of operator has taken place,

Provide i n the Convention whether the person suffer ing damage may enforce h i s r i g h t of d i r e c t ac t ion aga ins t the insurer or guarantor before he has attempted t o have the amount of compensation paid out t o h i m by the operator.

United S ta t e s Sub i e c t t o the modi f i ca ti on mentf oned under the heading "Article 16 - .. . " - - ~

proposed new paragraph (2)'s the United S ta t e s Delegation w i l l support a proposal t o include Ar t ic le 1(3) of the Brussels Protocol.

Document no I V Ch, I11

I Artic le 17(2) ( IBTA -

T h i s Article should be modified t o make it c lear t h a t the references t o *one a i r c r a f t w , llseveral a i r c r a f t u , and "two a i r c r a f t n r e l a t e only t o a i r c r a f t operated i n services which might subject the operator t o l i a b i l i t y under the Convention. It i s qui te probable, and cer ta in ly possible, t h a t an operator of many a i r c r a f t might have only one a i r c r a f t i n a service covered by the Convention, The amount of securi ty which he gives should be governed accordingly, It is suggested t h a t there be added a t the end of the paragraph:

nPn determining the amount of securi ty t o be provided by an operator of several a i r c r a f t , only such a i r c r a f t s h a l l be considered a s a r e used i n those services which might subject the operator t o l i a b i l i t y under t h i s Convention,lt

France It seems t h a t the draf t ing of Art ic le 17(3) could be amended t o

improve i t s form.

- --

Australi a The Commonwealth favours the provisions of Art ic le 18 exempting

claims of the operator against an insurer from seizure u n t i l claims of t h i rd pa r t i e s have been sa t i s f i ed , The present d r a f t should, however, be amended by addf ng :

"except t o claims ccrvered

the extent (if any) t h a t the operator has paid by the insurance,"

United Kindom

It i s suggested t h a t thtshbt, ion of the Art ic le would be expressed more c lear ly i f the following wording i s adopted:-

"8ny sums due to, or received by, an operator from an insurer o r guarantor s h a l l be exempt from seizure and execution by credi- t o r s of the operator u n t i l claims of th i rd pa r t i e s under t h i s Convention have been sat isf ied."

United S ta t e s The United S ta tes Delegation wf l l urge t h a t t h i s Article be re-

d ra f ted so a s t o make it c l ea r t h a t money already paid over by the insurer t o the operator s h a l l be exempt from seizure and execution by the general credf tors of the opepa tor .

R U L E S O F P R O C E D U R E 4 N D L I M I T A T I O N O F A C T I O N S

United Kingdom Replace the word I1incidentH by the word 110ccurrencen6

Document no IV P

Ch, I V

The Mexico City d r a f t provides f o r f i l i n g claims against an operator within twelve months from the da te of the incident which caused the damage, IATA urges, a s it has before, t h a t t h i s be modified t o provide f i l i n g of a l l claims within s i x months. This i s deemed necessary not f o r the advantage of t he operator, bu t f n order t o prevent inordinate delay i n t he r ece ip t of payment by c l a f m n t s , It i s obvious t h a t o rd inar i ly no operator or insurer w i l l be prepared t o pay any claimant u n t i l t he tfme has elapsed fo r the f i l i n g of a l l claims, so t h a t the t o t a l amount fnvolved may be determined.

Gus t r aPia The Cornruonwealth w i l l support the s ing le forum solut ion a s s e t

f o r t h i n Article 20, I t considers t h a t the so-called Australian-Swedish proposal a f fo rds the be s t ba s i s of compromise between the s ing le forum and multip1.e fora solut fans and therefore, i f subs tan t ia l support f s not obtained fo r the s ingle forum soluiion, t h e Australian-Swedish proposal may be reviewed,

B raz i l I n t h i s Art ic le , the d r a f t adopts the system of the s ingle jur isdic-

ti on of tibe courts of the place where the di. tmge occurred, ins tead of t he system of mirltfple ,;uri sdfetfon a t t h e choice of the person suffer ing damage es tabl ished by Art ic le I6 of t he t e x t of t he 1933 Coxvmtfon,

The system adopted is, d t h o u t doubt, simple, c lear , elegant and log ica l , That i s recognf zed even by those who did no t accept t h i s system i n t he Legal Comnlitt.ee because they considered it a s being disadvantageous both for the operator of the a i r c r a f t and the victim because of the delays, expenses and d i f f i c u l t i e s which ape involved i n the execution of judgments rendered by foreign cour ts *

This fern is a l s o expressed by the In te rna t iona l I n s t i t u t e f o r the Unlflctition of Pr ivate L a w a s given i n i t s mernwand~~m submit%ed t o the Seventh Session of t h ~ Legal Committee i u Mexico City,

This f e a r i s fomd in the b a s i s of Ar t ic le 20 of the d r a f t which permits ac t f .nns t o be broughL befcre tho courts of any Contracting S t a t e upon agreement between a l l t he victims and a l l t he persons against whom claims a r e made fol . larlng an accident.

I n r ea l i t y , p r ac t i c a l r e a s m s which would avoid t he delays, costs and d i f f i c u l t i e s involved in t he e ~ e c u t i o n of judgments, would suggest t he admission of the jurfsdfctfon of the cour ts of any Contracting S t a t e ,

'TQ addi t ion t o these considerations, it should not be forgotten t h a t i n many ccmntrfes d f f f i c u 1 t j . e ~ w i l l a r i s e i n the execution of judgments rendered by the cour ts of the ?lace of the accident.

1 7 . lnere should a l s o be considered the case of damage caused t o pcbl ic bodiss ('lpersonngs__r_?e d r o i t publicn) i n a pa r t i cu l a r S ta te , where such bodies request execntf o.:+ of Judgments by the courts of another S ta te , I n such a case, publ i c bodies would wi%h difficulty reach an agreement t o have t h e ac%ions brought before the cour ts of hrlother Sta te .

On the other hand, the public bodies a s well a s other l e g a l persons of the S t a t e where the damage omurrcd could accept the ju r i sd ic t ion of an a rb i - t r a l t r i b m a l const i tu ted by t he p a r t i e s i f the Contracting S t a t e s recognized the v a l i d i t y of" the decision of t h a t t r ibunal ,

Document no IV Ch. I V

This procedure would not be new i n internat ional law since it was admftted and recognized i n the Protocol on Arbitration Clauses, signed i n Geneva- on 2L+ September 1923, and r a t i f i e d by several countries including Belgium, Brazi l , Denmark, France, Germany, I t a l y , Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

These provisions which a r e found i n Art ic les 1 t o 3 of the Protocol, could be adopted i n the d r a f t Convention now under consideration,

We r eca l l , i n addition, t h a t the Chicago Convention ( 1 9 ~ ) a l s o provides f o r the establishment of a r b i t r a l t r ibunals the decisions of which bind the S t a t e s a s regards the in te rpre ta t ion and application of t h a t Convention (Art ic les 84 t o 8 6 ) ,

The Brazi l ian Delegation considers it desirable t o admit i n the system of the new Conventi on, the e s t a b l i shment of arbf t r a l t r ibuna ls and proposes' the following amendments t o Art ic le 20 of the draf t :

( i ) t o add a t the end of paragraph (1) of Article 20:

Itor before an a r b i t r a l t r ibuna lN.

( i i ) t o add a s the second l a s t paragraph of Art ic le 20:

"In the case of the establishment of an a r b i t r a l t r ibuna l pursuant t o t h i s Convention, the const i tut ion and a r b i t r a l procedure of such t r ibuna l s h a l l be governed by the w i l l of the pa r t i e s and by the law of the country i n whose t e r r i t o r y the a rb i t r a t i on takes place, The Contracting S ta t e s agree:

(a ) t o f a c i l i t a t e a l l s teps i n the procedure which require t o be taken i n t h e i r own t e r r i t o r i e s , i n accordance with the provisions of t h e i r law-governing a r b i t r a l procedure applicable t o ex is t ing differences;

(b) t o ensure the execution by t h e i r au tho r i t i e s and i n accordance with the provisions of t h e i r nat ional laws of a r b i t r a l awards made by applying, i f necessary, the provisions of paragraphs (4) t o (10) of t h i s Art ic leOt1

The Brazi l ian Delegation i s of the opinion t h a t the i n s t i t u t i o n of a r b i t r a l t r ibunals w i l l eliminate delays and expenses,

Canada The l l s i n ~ l e forumn solution proposed i n Art ic le 20 i s unacceptable

a s it would meet with d i f f i c u l t i e s of applfcatfon i n Canada due t o i t s Gonstitu- t ion. Canada has already supported i n the Legal Committee another proposal under which the operator would, a t any time v i t h i n three months of the happening of the accident causing damage on the surface, optionally submit h i s r i g h t s t o the court where the damage was caused and upon giving securi ty , would obtain a general adjudication of a l l claims; i n the absence of such elect ion, the injured th i rd par ty would have the choice of d i f f e r en t possible competent jur iedict ions , I n the Canadian view, t h i s proposal i s the most sa t i s fac tory one suggested so f a r . A t any r a t e , a solut ion which would be generally acceptable t o S ta tes , must be found i f the Convention is t o secure su f f i c i en t acceptance t o make it of any p ~ a c t i c a l value t o in te rna t iona l c i v i l aviat ion, Canada hopes, therefore, t h a t the matter w i l l be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y resolved during the course of the dipPomatic conference charged with the f i na l i za t ion of this Convention.

Document no I V Ch, I V

Denmark With reference t o the information contained i n t he comments made by

Council, according t o which the claims fo r compensation only i n exceptional cases exceed the maxima s e t out i n the Convention, it would seem impract ical t o provide t h a t claims f o r compensatfon can only be brought before the cour ts of t he place where the damage occurred, unless a l l persons having suffered damage agree on another forum, It w i l l of ten be more p r a c t i c a l t h a t a case i s brought before another court , e,g, i n the S t a t e where the operator i s domiciled, and the Conven- t i o n ought not t o contain provisions which proh ib i t t h a t the p a r t i e s of the indi- v idual case make an agreement thereupon, provided the operator does not put up the defence of l im i t a t i on of l i a b i l i t y .

F i r s t proposal: From the general point of view it i s noted t h a t t he system establ ishes . by t h i s Art ic le with regard t o t he recognit ion of judgments i s condenssd i n t o a mass of condit ions which a r e s o numerous and d i f f i c u l t t o es tab l i sh , t h a t the system w i l l function only with g rea t d i f f i c u l t y , A t the time of t he f i n a l d ra f t fng of the Art ic le it w i l l be use fu l t o simpiify it, with a view t o f a c i l i t a t i n g i t s applfcation,

Second proposal: Have Ar t ic le 20 read a s follows:

"(1) After the ex pi ratio^ of t he period provided under Art ic le 19 claims f o r compensation aga ins t t he operator s h a l l be no t i f i ed immediately by the l a t t e p t o the court of the place where t he damage occurred, where they w i l l be regis tered.

11(2) A t t h e same time, the operator who wishes t o a v a i l himself of the provisions of t h i s Conventfon l im i t i ng hfs l i a b i l i t y s h a l l apply t o the said court f o r a d e c i s i m regarding h i s enti t lement t o l imi ta t ion of l i a b i l i t y , and s h a l l a t such time deposi t the applicable amount provided under Ar t ic le 11, or s h a l l fu rn i sh a guarantee considered s a t i s f ac to ry by the sa id court .

"(3) The deposi t OF guarantee may be e f fec ted by any person l i a b l e f o r compensation, o r by t he guarantor or insurer re fe r red t o i n Ar t ic les 15 and 16,

" ( 4 ) After the deposi t has been made o r t he guarantee furnished, the cour t sha l l , a f t e r hearing t he p a r t i e s concerned, or by defau l t , (and a s expedit iously a s t he procedure of t he court w i l l permit), decide whether t he operator i s e n t i t l e d t o l imfta t fon of h i s l i a b i l i t y , I n the affirma- t i v e the court s h a l l proceed t o determine the amount of t h e compensation due t o each person sufferfng damage and making a claim under the terms of Ar t ic le 19, and s h a l l order payment t o be effected.

11 The court s h a l l apply the provision of Art fc le 14, i f applicable. The decision of t he cour t s h a l l be f i n a l ,

"(5) I n the event t h a t t he operator has not f i l e d an appl icat ion or has not effected the deposit or furnished the guarantee referred t o i n paragraph (2) above, o r i f the court considers t h a t the operator is not e n t i t l e d t o l im i t a t i on of l i a b i l i t y :

(a) the operator s h a l l be deemed t o have unlimited l i a b i l i t y ;

(b) the proceedings i n s t i t u t e d before the sa id court s h a l l be suspended and considered void; and consequently

(c) the persons suffer ing damage may br ing an a c t i on

Document 20 IV - "J" KV

( i ) against the operator, t o recover full compensation, e i t he r before the said court of %he place where the d.amage occurred, or before the court of the residence or pr incipal place of business of the operator;

( i f ) against the insurer, La obtain p p n t of th.e insurance indemnity contracted f o r by the operator, befcre the court of the place where the insurer has h i s residerlee or principal place sf t u ~ i n e s s . I n i ts deeisicn, the c o u r t s h a l l take f c t o amount any claims fo r compensation f i l e d with the c o u t sf the plaee where the damage occqrred under the provisions of paragraph (11, and s h a l l aalaeate t o eeeh claimant the proportion of t h s insurance indemi ty corresponding t o the damage suffered, i n accordtirace wFth Arti c l e P4 i f applicable,

ft T h i s dec%sion does not, a f f e c t the r i g h t of the person suffer ing the damage t o br ing etpl ac t ion against t h e operator at, a l a t e r date with a view t o recovering f u l l compensation,

11 The same provision appl ies when, instead of insurance, ti g ~ a r a r ~ t e e has been furnished,

"96) Judgments rendered i n aecoxdanee with paragraph (4) above, t r i ~ i e h a r e f i n a l and enforceable mder the law of t h e court before which the a c t i m was brought, may be erforeed i n any Contracting S ta t e , The merits of the case may not however be reopened,

11 Contrac ti ng Sta tes shall take the approprisle legf s l s t i v e measures t o ensure execution of judgments rendered in ~tccardance with t h i s Art ic lsOt8

Netherlands The Netherlands wish t o rsf%era%e t h a t the s o l u t i o n cf t he pr\;u;ain

of ju r i sd ic t ion would be i n t h e s e t t i n g up of an Internat ional Cour.z f c r 4 v 2 t . t ~ n r : Problems,

Qt l e a s t in t h e ease where Lfm3.tod lPabfPity appl ies and where, irs the f i r s t instance, judges of the various comt,ries have adjudicated emomts the aggregate of which exceeds the applf cable I f r n i t , there should be a r i g h t of appeal t o an in te rna t iona l cow%, The dsmsion of such a court should have binding force i n a11 Contracting States.

Norway It i s a grave defect i n the provisions of Lhfs Art ic le t h a t tAhq'

do not d i s t inguish between (a) the excepti&a9. and presumably very yare case where the defendant invokes Ifmitation of h i s l i a b i l i t y and (b) the grea.t %jox= i t y of cases where such l i u x l t a t f ~ n is out 0P the question, I n the l a t t e ~ groitp consolidatf on of a l l a c t f one @ r i s i n g from the same incident i s nct rleeded snd w i l l of ten be contrary t o the i n t e r e s t s of the pa r t i e s concerned, It is , therefore , strongly suggested t h a t the Ar t ic le be reconsidered,

Sweden A s ing le fsmm solut ion w i l l i n many cases prove r ig id , impractical

and unfa i r t o the par t ies , and especial ly i n the probably r a the r numerous cases, where execution of a judgment has t o be applied f o r i n a foreign eounlry, will often lead t o increased costs. Only in eases where, owing t o the extent of the damage caused, there f a the r i s k t h a t the applicable l fmi t s ruay be exceeded, would the compulsory eonsoffdation of a l l claims i n one court be jus t i f ied . According t o a statement i n Appendix I t o the comments by the CounciP, such cases appear t o be extremely r a r e ; fo r in te rna t iona l c i v i l aviat ion, perhaps once every ten or twenty years, Pf the limits in the Mexico City d r a f t should be retained,

Document no IV Ch, IV

The present wording of Ar t i c l e 20, paragraph (9) has t he disadvantages j u s t mentioned, The ex i s t i ng p o s s i b i l i t i e s of bringing ac t ions before a cour t other than a cour t sf the place where the damage oecurred, a r e considered i n su f f i c i en t , Alternatives without the disadvantages of t he present t e x t have, however, been brought before the Legal Comm%ttee, It is urgent ly desired t ha t , f o r the numerous eases where not s o much damage is caused, more supple provisions which take i n t o account t he i n t e r e s t s of the p a r t i e s concerned b e t t e r than the ex i s t i ng draf% should be drawn up, A t t he same time the Ar t ic le could a l s o be revised i n some other respects ,

Ar t i c l e 26 should read a s follows:

n(l) Subject t o t he prov%sfons of paragraphs (2) and (3) of t h i s Ar t ic le , ac t ions against. any person from whom payment of compenaation may be elaimed under t he provisions sf t h i s Convention may be brought only before t he cour ts of the place where t he damage occurred,

* (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of t h i s Art ic le , ac t ions f o r compensation may be brought before the c o m t s of t he place where the defendant has h i s ordinary residence o r p r inc ipa l place of business, provided t h a t t he defendant does not prove t h a t the toLaP amount of compensation whfeh may be awarded a s a r e s u l t of the incident causing t he damage probably may exceed the limits of l i a b i l i t y app l i cable m d e r the prnvi sf c~ns sf t h r s Cmventi on,

19(3) Notwithsbndifig the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of t h f s Art ic le , upon agreement betweon, on t he one hand, a l l persons who have made claims f o r compensation within the period contemplated by Ar t ic le 19, and, on t h e other hand, the persons from whom payment of compensation may be claimed under the prsvfsions of t h i s Convention, any ac t ion i n respect of such c la ims may be brought before the cour ts of any Contracting S t a t e ,

( 1 Each Contracting S t ~ t e s h a l l take a l l necessary measures t o ensure t h a t the defendant and a l l other p a r t i e s in te res ted a r e no t i f i ed of any proceedings eoriessanfng them and have a fair and adequate oppor- Lmf ty t o defend the%r interests,

"(5) Each Contracting S t a t e shall so f a r a s possible ensure t h a t a11 ac t ions a r i s i n g from a single incident and brought i n the cour ts of t h a t S t a t e i n accsrdanee with the provisions of t h f s Ar t ic le a r e consalideted far df8p0881 $11 a single proceeding before t he same cour tow

The remaining paragraphs of Art ic le 20 should, subject t o d r a f t i ng amendmentss form one o r two other Ar t ic les ,

United Kingdom The Untted Kingdom has studied Ar t ic le 26 i n the d r a f t Convention

i n conjunction with two a l t e & a t i v e t e x t s whkh were the t e x t based on the United Kf ngdom proposal incorporating suggestions of the I t a l i an Delegation, (1) and the t e x t covering the j o in t Australian-Swedish proposalo (2) The United Kingdom considers tha% the respective advantages and disadvantages of t he three a l t e r n a t i v e t e x t s a r e evenly balanced. While na tura l ly p re fe r r ing the United Kingdom-Italian t ex t , t he United Kingdom i s wi l l ing t o consider sympathetically e i t h e r t he t e x t a t present contained i n the d r a f t Convention or the t e x t based on the Australfan-Swedish propssa8,

Document fit 'IV P.

Ch, IV

Unf ted S t a t e s The proposed ArticYe 20 ~f t ha 3~aPflecsnvention provides f o r the

YimiteatPon of act ions t o a single fcmm ( the courts of the place where the damage oceursed'). Thfa prnvisfon makes it nsceseery t o establijsh a means by which execution can be obt.abedl i n cases where there m e no a s se t s i n the j.r.rrisdiction of the court rendering the Judgment, Therefore, kr+,ic:Se 20 provides t h a t the courts of the other Stertoa, p r t h s ta She C~nveat~ion, will grant execution on such jiadgments, with cer%afm specified procedural g e u n d s for refusfng t o g r a n t . exoeuticm,

It i s t h e 'belief' of the United S ta t e s that It would be advisable t o adopt the a l t e rna t e praaedum for sstl2Lng the juriediet3onal problems poeed by the ConvenGion thmugk~ the acceptaxe of the text based nn t e United Kingdom proposal incorporating suggeetPons of the I t a l i a n DePegation. The proposal contained in this tex% woxld permit t h e consolfdatfon of act ions in a single ju r f sdfe t%m I n tfxcse cases in whish there would be danger t h a t the sum of the claims a r i ~ i n g out of a mingle occmflsenee would exceed the limits af I . i ab i l i ty provided %OF by the Convention, A t +,he ssms tfrne, it would allow the normally used fora t o be pen to the p l a i n t i f f 3n cases i n which there i s no danger of exceeding the limits.

The h f t e d Sta t e s te l fevea Conventfon should not l i m i t the fora b k i n g j w k d i e t f o n i n eases arasfag mder the Convention except t o the ex- t e n t t h a t i s necessary to p ~ e s e ~ v @ the I.1nlftiB of I f a b i l i t y provided fo r i n the Convention,

The existing %ext of &rtiePe 20 would r e s u l t i n placing upon the p l a in t i f f , fn any case whew execution could na t be obtafned i n the State of or ig ina l jmiradtctfon, the necaas9ty of obt,ainXng execution i n a fmeign Sta te , Any undertaking of a Zoreim S b t e ts p a n t emaations. on s judgment of s. court of ernather State esnrtot be .g%vc,n witha-ul; +be aafegucxfis contained In paragraph (6) of Art ic le 20, Therefme, soqaiwmmt of a single forum in a l l cases may result i n delay, lnabflf%y t o enforce the judgment, and expense t o both the p l a i n t i f f and t b defendant in all cases, tha l a r g e m a j ~ r ~ t y of which w i l l nc t r a i s e a question of' excqxlbg %he Ifmilta, merely to safeguard against exceeding the Wn3-t~ of" PiabP1Sty h ex&ptionaP caves which w i l l very seldom a r i s e ,

IATA - AB regmda the prsafsfons sf A a r t L t l c ? 23 es+,abliehing a s ing la forum

for the deterin9mtfos of ckaims and for tb.e enfxeernent uf" judgments of saeh forum In other Sta tes , 3% i s f e l t t h a t tha Nexfcs CBty d r a f t represents the bes t solut ion ye t devised of an at~ornely d i f f k u l t and comp$ex problem, The suggested solut ion is considered t o be equitable from the standpoint of both clraftnants and defendants,

I U A I - The (Isnfvat%oxl not only gives the claimant an autcmatic right; of

recovery, bu t a l s o gives htm very wide powers of recovery, s3.nce he can stre the a i r c r a f t opepatop (and also in some eusew h i a insurer) i n the c o u ~ t s of the S t a t e where the damage was caused, axid can then proceed t o execute h i s judgment i n the tewitoiry of any ather Coatme-tfng $tat@, While t M s i s no doubt the i d e a l from the cUirmsnt3 s p % n t of v%ew, f t muat be edmf tted tQm % f t places the defendant a t a p a v e df sadvantagso 1x1 the P f r s t place he lms but f e w possibi l f t l e s of defence (except i n the rere cases of o o n t r f b u t o ~ negligence) against the elaim; i n the second place he i s a Pose$.p defendant i n a S t a t e i n whtch he m y well have no glace of bltslinssa ar az°ganfszat$em Per the conduct of any proper defence o r nego- t i a t i o n s i n respect of the imopsl?t of the claim, bJhi le , therefore, it i s proper t h a t the Cmven.tfw should aim a t smoothing the p t h of the genuine claimant, it should a l so e a t a i n rsaaanable proteetion for the defendant i n respect of fraudulent or ex@g:gemted ~ l a i m ~ The I U A I suggests t h a t i f the r i g h t s of claimants a r e

('1 See i n t h i s Volnme , page 58.

Document no I V - Ch. I V

t o be established on the l fnes suggested, it i s e s sen t i a l t h a t the Convention should contain ru les a s t o payment i n t o court by the defendant on the l i n e s e s t a b l i shed by Engli sh l e g a l pract ice and i n general operation th~oughout the B r i t i s h Commonwealth of Nations. Under these ru l e s a defendant, i f faced with a claim which he believes t o be fraudulent or exaggerated, can pay i n t o court such sum a s he believes t o be reasonable compensati on for the damage. The claim- a n t can e i t h e r accept t h f s sum, or continue h i s act ion, but i n the l a t t e r case i f he f a i l s . t o recover more than the amount paid i n t o court he must not only pay h i s own costs of the action, but may a l s o be ordered t o pay the whole or par t of the cos t s and expenses incurred by the defendant i n connection with the claim, This pract ice has proved a salutary safeguard against dishonest claimants, and i t s adoptfon seems t o be par t icu la r ly desirable under the Convention ru les , which give no other safeguard t o the defendant,

The PUAI requests t h a t a paragraph should be added t o t h i s Art ic le on the following l ines :

"In any proaeedings brought under the provisions of t h i s Convention, the defendant may e i t h e r (a) make an ac tua l tender or, (b) a wri t ten o f f e r by regis tered l e t t e r t o the claimant or his representatives of such amount a s he bel ieves t o be f a i r compensation f o r the damage sustained. If the claimant does not accept such tender o r o f f e r and f f the damages awarded by the c m t do not exceed the amount thereof, the c la iaan t s h a l l f o r f e i t a l l r i g h t t o jud ic ia l i n t e r e s t on his award and s h a l l indemnify the defendant against all cos ts and expenses reasonable incurred in continuing the defence of the proceedings subsequent t o the date sf such tender or o f f e ren

A s a t present drafted, the Convention gives the defendant absolutely no protection against fraudulent or exaggerated claims, The clause outlined above is based pa r t l y on the well t r i e d B r i t i s h pract ice of Itpayment i n t o courtu and pa r t l y on the European continental pract ice of lltendertP, Its adoptfon would tend t o lessen the cost of insurance by giving the defendant some degree of protection i n claims of thfs type, without any detriment t o the bona f fde claimant,

Braz i l Add a t the end of Art ic le 20(1) the words "or before an a r b i t r a l

t r ibunaln.

~e ba~um( 1) Proposed new text :

"(1) When an operator of a Contracting S ta t e causes damage t o a: nat ional of the same S ta t e i n another Contracting State , such nat ional may bring a c t i on i n a court of the S ta te of which both pa r t i e s a re nat ionalsg provided, however, t h a t any judgment on such act ion s h a l l be postponed i f the operator proves t h a t act ion h s been brought within the time prescribed in Artic le 19 before the court sf the place where the damage occmred, u n t i l f i n a l judgaent bas been given on any such ac t f onow

Proposed new t e x t :

(1) (a) Actf ons against any person from whom payment of compensation may be claimed under the provisions of t h f s Convention, may be brought only before the courts of a Contracting S ta t e where e i t he r the damage

Amendment t o United S ta t e s proposal. (2) See another t e x t proposed by Norway under heading "Proposed Article on

Reserva ti ons" , page 172.

Document no I V Ch, IV

occurred or the defendant had his ordinary residence or principal place of business. I n the second case, however, the action shal l , on demand of the defendant, be dismissed i f he proves t o the sat- i s fac t ion of the court t h a t clafms ar i s ing from the same incident up t o or i n excess sf the applicable limit of h i s l i a b i l i t y have been or may be raised against him, and the claimant may then bring h i s action before the courts of the State where the damage occurred.

(b) Notwithstanding the proviaions under (a) the par t ies t o an action may agree on the jur isdict ion of the courts of any Contracting Sta te where a forum is available."

Sweden See comments under vlArticle 20 a s a wholen,

United S t a t e s Add the following t o Article 20(1):

wWhere an operator of a Contracting Sta te injures a national of the same Sta te i n another Contracting State , such na t i onal may bring act ion i n a court of the S ta te of which both pa r t i e s a re nationals, unless the operator shows t h a t the limits of l i a b i l i t y a r e l i k e l y t o be exceeded."

France Replace ( i n French t e x t only) the words ", , ,repoivent not i f icat ion

de l a proc6duren by the words g e ~ o i v e n t not i f icat ion d-.

I Article 20(3)

Arnentina Amend A r t i c l e 20(3) t o read a s follows:

m(3) Each Contracting State sha l l ensure tha t a l l actions a r i s ing from a s ingle incident and brought i n accordance with paragraph (1) of t h i s Article a re consolidated f o r disposal i n a single proceeding before the same c o ~ r t . ~

France and I t a l g Delete the words nso f a r a s possiblen.

I s r a e l To ensure tha t a l l claimants a re protected, it appears tha t any

judgment should be delayed for twelve months f r k the date of the incident.

France Replace, i n subparagraphs (a) and (b) (of the French t e x t only)

the word "perdant" by the words " la pa r t i e qui succomben.

( secre tar ia t Note: This change applies t o the French t e x t only, a s the English text uses the expression "judgment debtorw .)

Docuinent no IV Ch, I V

I t a l y Add ( i n t h e French t e x t only) a f t e r t h e word +lbiensW the words -

ltou des c r 6 d i t s n . Uni ted Kingdom

Under paragraph ( 4 ) of Ar t i c le 20 t h e cour t appl ied t o f o r execution of a judgment must be s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e judgment was given by a "competent court", The United Kingdom considers t h a t , i n order t o s impl i fy execution proceedings and t o save expense, it would be advantageous t o l a y down a simple procedure by which t h e person seeking t o enforce t h e judgment rnay prove the competence of t h e court which gave it.

To t h i s end it i s proposed t h a t t h e Convention should include a pro- v i s i o c t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t a c e r t i f i c a t e of t h e competent a u t h o r i t i e s of t h e contract- i n g S t a t e i n which t h e judgment was given, t h a t the cour t which gave t h e judgment was a competent cour t , should be accepted a s conclusive by t h e cour t applied t o f o r executiono

Araenti na Amend A r t i c l e 20(5) s o t h a t it w i l l read a s follows:

"The meri ts cf the case may no t be reopened i n proceedings f o r exeeutf on under paragraph (1) of t h f s Article."

Aus t r a l f a The procedural safeguards i n Ar t i c le 20(6) a r e considered adequate,

Paragraph ( f ) which permits a judgment t o be s e t a s i d e on grounds of publ ic pol icy should be omitted.

1 t a 1~ Ar t ic le 20(6) (b) i s too broad and i n d e f i n i t e ; according t o the pro-

v i s ion , t h e judge t o whom app l ica t ion i s made f o r execution has t h e f a c u l t y of r e fus ing recognit ion on t h e b a s i s of a p r inc ip le of equi ty , which bears no r e l a t i o n t o an evaluation of t h e procedural r u l e s of the S t a t e where judgment was rendered, b u t r a t h e r t o an evaluation of the meri ts , t h e scope of which cannot be affirmed a p r i o r i ,

I n t h e case of A r t i c l e 20(6)(d) it would be more u s e f u l t o e s t a b l i s h a way of reopening t h e merits of t h e fore ign judgment, s ince it i s very d i f f i c u l t t o make an evaluat ion O f t h i s kind without, i n some manner, considering the mer i t s of t h e d ispute . On the o ther lzand, according t o paragraph (51, the meri ts of t h e case rnay not be reopened no matter what t h e kind of fore ign judgment, and t h i s i s a considerable d i f f i c u l t y both i n t h e determination of t h e condit ion of fraud i n t h e a c t i o n , and a l s o i n the case of a judgment given by de fau l t .

Spa i n The numerous causes f o r which t h e cour t before which the a c t i o n i s

brought can re fuse execution of t h e judgment, mean nothing e l s e than a l ack of confidence towards the cour t s of o ther S t a t e s , something which i s q u i t e inexpl i - cable and without j u s t i f i c a t i o n a s regards cour ts of Contract ing S ta tes . If the Convention seeks p rec i se ly i n t e r n a t i o n a l col labora t ion, it is no t bel ieved t h a t it w i l l be a good system t o doubt the capaci ty of col labora t ion of the o ther S ta tes ,

Therefore, it would appear f i t t i n g t h a t these defences be reduced t o t h e g r e a t e s t extent poss ib le or , b e t t e r s t i l l , t o t a l l y suppressed,

IaTA I n s e r t t h e word. tlor" a t t h e end of t h e subparagraphs (a) through ( e ) ,

Document no TV Ch. IV

I t a l y I n t h i s paragraph the ordinary act ion i s excluded when the foreign

judgment i s not f i na l , and t h i s obliges the par ty t o continue the act ion abroad and a l s o gives weight t o the pending judgment a s among the jud ic ia l au thor i t i es of the various States ,

I n addition, the ordinary ac t ion i s prevented when, i n the judgment on the application f o r ekecution, the recognition of the foreign judgment has been refused because the person making the application f o r execution is not en- t i t l e d t o do so.

On the other hand, it is proposed t o admit, i n general, the pos- s i b i l i t y of bringing an ordinary action, with the sole l imi ta t ion of the defence of the con f l i c t of the ordinary act ion and the application f o r execution.

( Artic le 2 0 ( 8 ) 1

Argentina On the assumption t h a t the amendment proposed f o r p rag raph (3) i s

accepted, t he f i r s t sentence of paragraph (8) should be deleted because it would lack sense since the case i n t h a t sentence could not a r i se .

France I n the t h i rd l i n e (of the French tex t ) the expression " les demandes

en r6mrat ionn (See l i n e 2 of English: nclaims*) seems t o be inaccurate and should be replaced by the expression " les instances en r6parationN ( ~ n g l i s h : "actionsm).

I n the f i f t h l i n e (of the French tex t ) the words "en vertu de ces ,luaementsn should be replaced by the words ltau r b l t a t de ces instancesw,

( s ec re t a r i a t Note: The e f f ec t of this proposal would have been t o change the present English t e x t which reads: llif it is evident t h a t judgments exceeding i n aggregate the limits of l i a b i l i t y might be enteredn t o read: "if it i s evident t h a t a s a r e s u l t of these act ions the limits of l i a b i l i t y preseri'bed i n t h i s Conventi on might be exceededw.)

United Kindom I n order t o c l a r i f y the intent ion of paragraph (8) the words " i f it

i s evident t h a t judgmen-@exceeding i n aggregate the limits of l i a b i l i t y prescribed i n this Convention might be entered" should be deleted and the following words subst i tuted :

"on proof by the judgment debtor t h a t judgments exceeding i n the aggregaite the l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y prescribed f n t h i s Convention might be entered i n regard t o such claimstt.

IBTA - Subst i tute the words Nsha l l refuseH

change the words "sha l l not be obliged t o execute execute judgmentsn,

[ Artic le 20(9) 1 Amend A r t i c l e 20(9) by de le t ing the

f o r the words refusen and judgmentst1 t o reah l lshall

second sentence thereof.

not

Document no IV Ch, nr

Reinsert a f t e r the words "per annumn the words llfrom the date of

See comments of Braz i l and I U A I under heading ItArticle 20 a s a

-- I a r t i c l e 21(1) ]

I s r a e l - p~

Suggests the delet ion of the second pa r t of the paragraphs t l . , , but i n any case the r i gh t of action s h a l l be extinguished on the expiration of three years from the date of the incident which caused the damageN. Absolute l imita- t ion of three years might work considerable hardship; f o r example mental incapacity occasioned by the injury might prevent the i n s t i t u t i o n of act ion within the required period, It seems preferable t o leave the question of suspension or in te r - ruption of the period i n the hands of the t r i a l court without imposing a r i g id I f m i t a ti on.

United Kingdom Replace the word nincidentN by the word voccurrencen,

I U A I - The suggested absolute time l i m i t of three years has the f u l l sup-

por t of the I U A I a s it conforms with the normal three year accounting period adopted f o r insurance accounts.

I New Article a f t e r Art ic le 21

United Kingdom To i n s e r t a f t e r Art ic le 21 the following provision which appears - - - -

i n Art ic le 18 of the Rome Convention:

"In the event of the death of the person l iab le , an act ion i n respect of the l i a b i l i t y within the l imi t s prescribed by t h i s Con- vention sha l l l i e against those lega l ly representing h i s e s t a t e Q n

United S t a t e s The United S ta tes believes t h a t there should be added t o Chapter I V

of the d r a f t Convention a new a r t i c l e which would provide t h a t i n the event of the death of the person l i a b l e under the Convention, an act ion may be brought against the e s t a t e of the decedent, or against the person l ega l ly responsible f o r the decedent's obligations under the laws of the Contracting S ta te where such act ion i s brought,

Document nra IV CD. V

A P P L I C A T I O N O F T H E C O N V E N T I O N A N D G E N E R A L P R O V I S I O N S

L r ~ e n t i na Agrees i n general w i t 3 Chapter V,

Araenti na Subst i tute i n the first Line of the f irst paragraph the word

n ~ r e v i atoslt for v r o v i s tosn . change a f f e c t s the Spanish t e x t only, 1 - Amend the second paragraph by adding a f t e r the ward the

expression flmaritime apparatusn and add a f t e r the word *a i r c r a f tn the adjec- t i v e "floatingr1 so t h a t the t e x t would read thus: nship9 maritime apparatus or a i r c r a f t f l oa t ing on the high seas".

These amendments a r e inser ted for the purpose of making the provisions of the Convention extend, i n the f i r s t case, t o a l l physical objects which f l o a t on the see, without r e s t r i c t i n g them t o t h a t which could be technical ly 'understood by the expression flship98,

A s regards the addit ion of the word llfPoatingll, t o qual i fy the a i r c r a f t on the high seas, the intent ion i s t o c l a r i f y the l e g a l concept i n order t o avoid t h a t the a i r c r a f t might be considered a s i n f l i g h t , i n which case it would be excluded from the provisions of the Convention.

Bus t r a l i a Art ic le 21, should be amended by omitting the exception i n the

case where the damage f a governed by contract , The Convention only appl ies t o damage caused i n f l i g h t . Art ic le 23, which had no equivalent i n the Rome Convention, excludes claims by passengers, so t h a t it appears t h a t Art ic le 2% can only apply where the damage i e caused by a second a i r c r a f t belonging t o the same operator, I n these eircumstances it i s considered t h a t the victimss r i gh t s should not be less because the second a i r c r a f t causing the damage happens t o belong t o the same operator,

United Kindom The following wording fs suggested i n order t o c l a r i f y the

posi t ion of a passenger carr ied gratuitously, but protected under the Warsaw Convention:

"This Convention does not apply t o damage on the surface caused t o persons or goods on board an a i r c r a f t i f compensation f o r damage i s payable e i t h e r under a contract of carr iage (including an agreement t o carry gratuftousPy by an a i r t ransport undertaking) between the person who suf fe rs sueh damage and the operator or the pepson en t i t l ed t o use the a i r c r a f t a t the time the damage occurred, or by a contract of employment between sueh persons,"

United Sta teq It i s understood t h a t the p r inc ip le contained i n Art ic le 24 is

t h a t the Convention s h a l l not give a damaged person a r i g h t of act ion aga ins t an a i r c r a f t operator f o r damage caused t o t h a t person o r h f s property on the surface i f the re i s a contract of carr iage o r employment between t he operator of the a f r c r a f% causing the damage and the person so in jured, Since Ar t ic le 24 a s now dra f ted does not make i t c l ea r t h a t t he contract must be a s s ta ted , it i s suggested t h a t t he Conference r e f e r t o the Draft ing Committee the t a sk of c l a r i fy ing the Ar t ic le ,

I ATA - I n connection with Ar t ic le a, no reason i s seen why the ex-

c l u s i on of app l i c ab f l i t y of t he Convention i n eases where the p rk ies have regulated t h e i r r e l a ti ons by contract should be confined t o the two ca t egor ies mentioned i n the Mexico Ci ty d r a f t - namely, where l i a b i l i t y is regulated by a con t rac t of carr iage between the person who suffered such damage and t he operator or the person e n t i t l e d t o use t he a i r c r a f t a t the time the damage occurred, or by a contract of employment between such persons, I n t h i s area, a s dist inguished from t h a t of t he Warsaw Convention, there appeal-s t o be no reason why any contract should not be given e f fec t , U T A has a l s o waged i n the pas t , and again urges, t h a t the exception should cover not only cases where damage f s regulated "by a contract of employmentv, bu t a l s o "by the law r e l a t i n g t o workmen0 s compensatf on appl icable t o a contract of employmentn, Otherwise ser ious questions w i l l a r i s e a s t o whether t he exclusion covers cases i n many of the United S t a t e s where Workmenus Compensation laws a r e not a matter of eontraet ,

Redraft Art ic le 24 t o reed a s fsllaws:

"This Convention s h a l l not apply t o damage on the surface i f l i a b i l i t y f o r such damage i s regulated e i t h e r by a eontraet between the person who su f f e r s such damage and t he operator or t he person e n t i t l e d t e use the a i r c r a f t a t the time the damage occurred, or by the law r e l a t i n g t o workmenQs compensation applicable t o a contract of employment,"

I U A I - The IUAI suggests t h a t t h i s ArticZe should be amended t o read:

Yl"fs Convention s h a l l not apply t o any damgge the l i a b i l i t y i n respect of which i s governed by a contract between the pa r t i e s entered into before the damage was :awed ,"

It i s pointed o u t t h a t the l i a b i l i t y af the operator may be governed not only by contracts of carr iage or employment, bu t a l s o by other contracts ( i ,e , lease of premises a t an a i rpo r t , o r a l i cense t o operate a i r c r a f t from an a i r f i e l d ) ,

Uni t ed S t a t e s The United S t a t e s reeommenda t h a t Art ic le 25 be amended t o

read a s follows:

"This Convention s h a l l not, apply t o damge caused by a i r c r a f t used i n mil i tary , eusloms, police, or ~ t h e r governmental services , The $ranspurtatfon of passengers, m a i l , or eargo fo r h i ~ e s h a l l never be tonsfdered a governmental se rv ieeOw

Documen% 30

Ch, v

Austral i a Art ic le 26 r e l a t i ng to payment i n the currency of the S ta te In

which damage i s caused i s acceptable bu t a more binding undlerhklng could not, be accepted,

Norway Agrees with the obeervatfons of the 1650 Council,

Spain The question af exchange is inseparable from t h a t of f fnancfal

responsibi l i ty , since it cannot be said t h a t the victim i s compensated ~f he does not obtain the amount of the compensation f o r damage f n a usable money and t h f s i s only possible when the compensation i s paid i n hilo nat ional currency. The principle of Art ic le 26, because it i s a mere recommendation, would not be workableo It is cer ta in t h a t the technieal-financfal problems t o which the problem of exchange gives r i s e , a r e very complicated and subject t o very variable contingencies9 which make it d i f f i c u l t t o f ind a f u l l y satis- factory principle. Nevertheless, taking fn to account the necessity of t h a t payment in nat ional currency so t h a t the f i nanc ia l respons ib i l i ty of the i n - surer may be a p rac t i ca l r ea l i t y , and considering tha t , a s a general rule , the amounts of compensation w i l l not cons t i tu te a considerable volume f n r e l a t i on t o the normal possibiPf t fes sf exchange of each comtry, we do not believe t h a t there a r e su f f i c i en t reasons f o r f a i l i n g t o i n d u d e i n the d r a f t a compulsory pr inciple by which the insurers a r e enabled t o pay the compen- s a t i on i n the currency of the S t a t e of the victim, And natwaPky, such a pr inciple should be included i n Chapter 111,

United S ta t e s Since compenaatf on paid +.c a na ti saaP of one Sta te in the e u ~

rency of another S t a t e is r a re ly of use t o such a person, it 1s believed desirable that the Convention require t h a t any compensation payaSle under this term of the Convention or a s a r e s u l t of a judgment rendered f n a court ac t ion brought under the Convention, s h a l l be wid I n the e-mrency of the domicile of the injured person,

For the pprrpose of achfevfng the end sought in the preceding paragraph, the pa r t i e s t o the Ganventlcn should undertake t o f a c i l i t a t e payment t o the injured person i n the surreney of such personPs dom%ci3e,

Araenti na I n the d e f i n i t i on of vlnormaP f l f ght" subs t i tu te ( i n the Spanish

t e x t only) the term ntrsffeQn fo r " t r&nsf tot l , s ince the first word gives the idea of commerce which undoubtedly -been the i n t e n t behind the d ~ a f b ing; while the l a t t e r word8 r e fe r s t o a i r t r a f f i c , t h f s being what f s envfs~- a ged ,

I n the def in i t ion s f nTerrEtory of a S ta tew, subs t i tu te Qfn the Spani sh t e x t only) the term ll*~n f o r the term l tCap~tu lon ,

Amend the def in i t ion of MContracting S ta te so t h a t it will read:

nAny Sta te which has r a t i f i e d or adhered t o t h f s Convention from the time such r a t i f i c a t i o n or adherence en te rs i n t o force and whose denunciation thereof has not become ef fec t ive . I1

There i s added t o the d r a f t the following: "from the time such r a t f f i ea t fon or adherence en te rs i n t o force," This i s na tura l sfnee, while this requirement is not complied with, the Contracting S ta t e i s under no obligation and consequently the provisions of the Convention a r e not applicable t o f t ,

Document no fV Ch, V - 166 -

AustraXi a The def fn i t i o n of 91Pe~sonn should not include S t a t e , Questions

of sovereign immunity a r e involved, The apparent object could be achieved by adding a provision t h a t (subject t o Art fc le 25) a i r c r a f t operated by a S t a t e or an au thor i ty or cofaporatfon i n which a S t a t e has an i n t e r e s t , s h a l l be s u b ~ e c t t o the Convention and t h a t Contracting S t a t e s undertake, i n respect of a l l claims a r i s i n g out of the damage caused by such a i r c r a f t , t o submit t o the ju r i sd ic t ion of cour ts rendered competent under Ar t ic le 20,

France The m l t f p l f e a t i o n of de f in i t i ons i n an in te rna t iona l convention

i s not des i rable ,

Retain i n Ar t ic le 27 the de f in i t i on of "Terr i tory of a Sta te t t only and d r a f t this de f in i t i on a s foUows:

"For the purposes of t h i s Convention the aTer r i to ry of a Stateg includes not only e t e . O . l Q

I n s e r t the def in i t ion of "normal f l fgh t t l i n Ar t i c l e 1 a t t he end of paragraph (1) s ince this i s the only provision of the whole Convention which uses t h i s expression,

I s r a e l Cla r i fy the de f in i t i on of "normal f l ight1 ' by adding a f t e r t he -

words M a i r t r a f f i c rkgulatf on# the following:

"applicable t o such f l i g h t i n t he t e r r i t o r y of the damage occurred9',

United Kindom Delete t he de f in i t i on of '*normaP f l i g h t m -

ment proposed i n Art? c l e l ( 1) ,

Uni ted K i ngdom I n s e r t t he word "Organization" a f t e r the

the S ta to where

i n view of the amend-

word lhAvi a ti on" ,

Argentina Without changing t he substance of the provisions of t h i s Art ic le ,

the following d r a f t i s proposed with the aim of f a c i l i t a t i n g i t s interpreta- t ions

" A s between Contracting S t a t e s which a r e a l s o p a r t i e s t o the In te rna t iona l Convention f o r the Unification of Certain Rules re- l a t i n g t o Damage Caused by Afrcraf t t o Third Pa r t i e s on the Surface opened f o r s ignature a t Rome on 29 May 19339 the present Convention supersedes the sa id Rome Conventionow

co here is no change i n the English t e x t and the change app l ies t o the Spanish t e x t only, )

Document no I V Ch. VI

F I N A L P R O V I S I O N S

Argentina Agrees i n general with Chapter V I .

Australia The comments of the Legal Department of the United Nations a r e

generally agreed with.

It is agreed with the United Nations t h a t something should be said regarding the duration of the Convention. We would, on principle, a l s o support the inclusion of provision f o r reference f o r disputes t o the Interna- t i o n a l Court of Just ice , while some provision f o r amendment or revision might be made such a s provision f o r the ca l l i ng of a conference on the request of a cer ta in given number of S ta tes , pa r t i e s t o the Convention.

United Nations I n view of t he specialized nature of the subject matter of t h i s

d r a f t Convention, it has been thought proper t o confine the comments of the Legal Department t o the f i n a l Art ic les of t h i s text , basing our examination both on the experience of the Department i n preparing d r a f t conventions and on t h a t of the Secretary General a s depositary of a considerable number of mu l t i l a t e r a l conventions. Enclosed is a s e t of observations on the f i n a l provisions, (11

It may already have been decided t o dispense with other types of f i n a l provisione which, however, often avoid d i f f i c u l t i e s . Examples, which would include clauses f o r duration of the va l id i ty of the Convention, a rb i t r a - t i o n of disputes or reference t o the Internat ional Court of Just ice , and amendment o r revision, w i l l a l l be found i n the Legal Department's Handbook of Fina 1 Clauses.

I Artic le 30 1 Australia

The Art ic le would be b e t t e r draf ted i f i t ' spec i f i ed what S t a t e s should be e n t i t l e d t o sign, but only f o r the reasons s ta ted by the United Nations, via, t h a t the depositary might be confronted by doubts a t a future date. Possibly the r i g h t of signature might be l imited t o a l l S ta tes invi ted t o the Conference. This would not preclude other S t a t e s from becoming pa r t i e s t o the Convention l a t e r , a s Art ic le 33 provides f o r such cases.

United S ta t e s The United S ta t e s believes t h a t Article 30 should be amended

by in se r t i ng a f t e r the word nsignaturett the words *by a l l par t ic ipants i n the ConferenceN,

United Nations This Art ic le a s drafted leaves i n doubt what S t a t e s a r e e n t i t l e d

t o sign. Customarily such an a r t i c l e specif ies t h a t the Convention i s open f o r signature by a l l S t a t e s invi ted t o the Conference, o r a l l S t a t e s Members of the Organization, or other specified c lass . Otherwise the depositary can sometimes be confronted with ser ious doubts a t a future date,

('1 These observations w i l l be found under the subsequent headings,

(59)

Docutnent no I V Ch, VI

Austral ia The point made by the United Nations on paragraph (2) of t h i s Ar t ic le

i s of g rea t importance. It i s t r u e t ha t , a s a t present draf ted, Ar t ic le 31 provides only f o r not ice of r a t i f i c a t i o n s t o go t o signatory and adhering States- and the same provisions a r e contained i n Ar t i c l e 33(2), but i f it i s desi red t o no t i fy a l l S t a t e s who might, a t some conceivable time, s ign or adhere, then both provi- s ions should be a l t e r ed t o provide f o r no t i f i c a t i on t o a l l S t a t e s e n t i t l e d t o s ign or adhere. The pas t p rac t ice has been t o no t i fy only those S t a t e s which have signed and/or adhered a t the time of no t i f i ca t ion , s ince they a r e the S t a t e s p r i - marily concerned.

Unf ted S t a t e s The pr inc ip le of Ar t ic le 31 should remain unchanged bu t paragraph (2)

should be amended t o read a s follows:

"(2) The instruments of r a t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l be deposited i n the archives of the In te rna t iona l C iv i l Aviation Organization, which s h a l l give not ice of the da te of each deposit , within f i f t e e n days a f t e r such date , t o a l l S t a t e s members of the ICAO or the UN."

United Nations Although it i s common f o r t he requirements of no t i f i c a t i ons t o S t a t e s

t o be col-lected into-a s ing le a r t i c l e a t the end of t he f i n a l provisions, there seems no harm i n dispers ing these ins t ruc t ions throughout t h i s and the following four Art ic les .

The d i f f i c u l t y with the ins t ruc t ion i n paragraph (2) of t h i s Ar t ic le , t o give not ice t o each of t he signatory and adhering Sta tes , i s t h a t it leaves unnotif ied a c l a s s of S t a t e s which have a d e f i n i t e i n t e r e s t i n learning of r a t i - f i c a t i o n s - namely, the S t a t e s e n t i t l e d t o sign o r adhere bu t which have no t y e t had the opportunity t o do so. If Ar t ic les 30 and 33 were t o be amended t o specify the S t a t e s e n t i t l e d t o s ign or adhere, it would then be s u f f i c i e n t t o provide f o r not ice t o a l l S t a t e s so en t i t l ed .

Austral ia

France

l i a b i l i t y , it hering t o the pr aposed .

I s r a e l

i c a l l y t o the

I Art ic le 32 )

See comments above under Art ic le 31.

I n order t o avoid, a s f a r a s possible, a dua l i t y i n the system of i s necessary t o f i x a t a su f f i c i en t l y high number t he S t a t e s ad- Convention , a t the time it en te rs i n t o force. The f igure of 15 i s

Replace t he f i r s t sentence by:

Convention s h a l l come f n t o force on the nineteenth day t he day of deposi t of the ... instrument of r a t i f i c a t i on . "

From the d r a f t i ng point of view it seems preferable t o r e f e r specif- comim f n t o e f f e c t of the Convention. The present d r a f t r e f e r s t o

Itcoming i n t o force between signatory S ta tesw.

United S t a t e s The United S t a t e s suggests t h a t the not ice provided f o r i n Art ic le 32

be given t o a l l the S t a t e s members of ICAO o r t he UN. It a l s o suggests t h a t the convention s h a l l come f n t o force upon r a t i f f ca t ion by f i f t e e n Sta tes .

Document no 23 Ch, VT

United Nations See commen=t on Ar-%iclbe 31, The aaine comment applies t o Art ic le 32(2).

Notdce of entry b t o force may encourage non-signatory , s ta tes - t o -take aOtiono

Australf a A s the United EJatfons say, paragraph (1) i n t h i s Article does no%

indicate or U n i t %he c h a s sf S b t e s from which instsuraents of adberenap may be accepted, In i%s present form it seems t h a t any Sta te could adhere, t h a t is, no% only a l l S ta tes invited t o the Confersnee but any additional S ta tes including newly-created Stateso The use of the words suggested by the United Nations would l i m i t the S ta tes whfeh could adhere t o those invited by the Council or some other organ

Concerning the second par% sf %he United Nations c~smnent, it is a matter f o r the Confasense t o decide wk~ether adherence ethould be lfafted -to a d& a f t e r the Conventfon has in%o forceo This does not seem t o be a mattar of great importanceo

United Sta tes It i s believed that the notice of any depogit of an in&rume& df

adherence should be given t o a l l the States Members of I W or the UN witbin f i f t e e n days a f t e r the receipt of such notice by ECAO,

United Nations Paragraph (1) &ares v i a Art ic le 30 the d i f f i c u l t y of not indimthg

the c lass of Stakes from which the O~ganization may accept deposit of an instmmmt of adherence, Presopmably these would be a11 Sta tes invited t o the Conference, but it might happen i n tihe future &hat %he adherence of additional States, o r of newly- created States, would be desired, In such EL case, it i s often considered helpful t o enlarge the c l a s s en t i t l ed t o adhere by using language such as:

"This Convention s h a l l be open f o r adherence by non-signatory Sta tes which were invited t o ae& sepresentatives t o the Conference, anad t o a l l Sto%ea whhh ma hereafter be invited t o adhere by the Co-ucil" (or &her organ 7 .

While it has long been customary i n older diplomatic practice t o permit adherence only a f t e r entry in to force, more recent United Nations practice has eliminated this res t r i c t ion on the theory t h a t acceptance of the Convention should be encouragedo IP sane e w e s it proves more convenfent f o r a government t o adhere d i r ec t ly wftBout sending a representative f o r prfor signature, Such a view would i n t h i s Art ic le lead %o the deletion of the words "a f t e r it has come in to forceno

Australi a See cannnelats under Art ic le 31 above,

It is considered t h a t provision should be included t o require a State which denounces the Convention t o f u l f f l l obligations in re la t ion t o damage caused by a i r c r a f t pegistered i n tha t S ta te prfor t o denunciation becoming effec- t ive, A d r a f t along the f o l l ~ f n g l i n e s is suggested:,

"The denunciation of t h i s Convention i n pursuance of Art ic le 34 s h a l l not a f f ec t the obligations of a Sta te i n re la t ion t o damage caused by a i r c r a f t registered i n tha t S ta te pr ior t o the date on which the denunciation takes e f f ec ton

See comments under heading "Proposed a r t i c l e on reservationst8,

Document no W Ch, VP

Uni ted S ta t e s

ested i n the Notice of denunciation should be given promptly t o any S ta te in te r -

Convention, especial ly i n view of the period of s i x months i n which such a denunciation would take e f f ec t under the terms of Art ic le 34, Therefore, it i s suggested t h a t such notice be given within f i f t e e n days a f t e r rece ip t thereof by ICkO and t h a t it be given t o a l l S t a t e s which may be members of I C A O or of the UN,

Uni ted Nations The point concernfnn S ta tes en t i t l ed t o no t i f ica t ion made under

Arti cPe 30 above i s applicable here,

Argentina With the aim of simplifying t h i s

i n substance, it i s proposed t o add a t the end Ar t ic le and without amending it of paragraph (1) the following:

" I f sueh declaratf on i s not expressly made the Conventi on s h a l l be considered a s extending t o aPP such t e r r i t o r i e s , ~

This addit ion, besides simplifying the Article, w i l l permit of the de le t f an of paragraph (3) of the Art ic le ,

As regards paragraph ( A ) , a perf od should be inser ted a f t e r the words gof this Art ic leUo \

Australia It i s not agreed with the United Nations t h a t the words of para-

graph ( 4 ) of t h i s Art ic le contemplate separate adherence on behalf of t e r r i - t o r i e s , in the sense of making the t e r r i t o r i e s separate pa r t i e s t o the Conven- t i on since the provision fo r such separate adherence i s l imited t o Contracting S ta tes which have already declared t h a t t h e i r acceptance f o r themselves does not extend t o t h e i r respective t e r r i t o r i e s , However, others may take a similar view t o the United Nations and it would be preferable t o use the normal phrase I1dedaration o r n o t i f f c a t i on1' in regard t o t e r r i t o r i e s ,

United S ta t e s Since a i r c r a f t based i n t e r r i t o r i e s f o r the foreign r e l a t i ons of

which a Contracting S ta te may be responsible may i n f a c t be regis tered i n such Gontracting S ta te , the provisions of Ar t ic le 35 may r e s u l t i n a i r c r a f t from such a t e r r i t o r y being e l i g i b l e f o r the benef i t s of the Convention i n a foreign country even though a i r c r a f t of such foreign country m y not be e l i g ib l e f o r sueh benef i t s i n the t e r r i t o r y concerned, FOP example, if the United Kingdom should dealare t h a t i t s acceptance of the Convention would not apply t o Jamaica, and i f the United S ta t e s should be a par ty t o the Convention, an a i r c r a f t from Jamaica, bearing United Kingdom reg is t ra t ion , would obtain the b e n e f i t s of the Convention when it flew i h t o the United States , but a United S ta t e s a i r c r a f t f ly ing i n t o Jamaica would receive no benef i t s under the Convention,

I n order t o avoid repe t i t ion of the provisions of Art ic le 22, paragraph (3) of Art ic le 35 should be amended t o read a s follows:

n(3) With the exception of t e r r i t o r i e s i n respect of which a delcaration has been made i n accordance with paragraph (1) of t h i s Article, t h i s Convention s h a l l apply t o a l l other t e r r i t o r i e s of Contracting States ,"

Document no I V Ch. Vd

United Nations The concept i n paragraph ( 4 ) t h a t a S ta te may adhere tlseparatelylt

on behalf of a t e r r i t o r y i s presumably not intended t o make t h a t t e r r i t o r y a separate par ty t o the Convention, To avoid the notion of t e r r i t o r i a l *adherenceH it has been normal t o have the Contracting S ta t e make a "declarationn or l tnotif ica- tionIt t o the depositary concerning any , te r r i to ry , avoiding the formality of the deposit of a separate instrument of adherence, See, fo r example, Article XXI of the Internat ional Sanitary Convention f o r Aerial Navigation, Washington, 1 9 4 ; or United Nations examples s e t out i n section V I B of the Legal DepartmentBs Handbook of Final Clauses,

Argentina There i s an almost universal des i re t o provide i n legfs la t ions for

the various cases which might a r i s e out of experience i n order t o avoid depending, except t o the l e a s t extent possible, on the various in te rpre ta t ions which come from the so-called l ega l gaps, I f it i s desired t o have the Convention provide f o r dependent t e r r i t o r i e s then, taking i n t o account the foregoing, it is proposed t o amend t h i s k r t i c l e a s follows:

"(1) When the whole or pa r t of a Contracting S ta te i s t ransferred t o a non-contracting State , t h i s Convention s h a l l cease t o apply a s from the date of t ransfer ,

"(2) When p a r t of the t e r r i t o r y of a Contracting S ta t e becomes an independent S t a t e o r assumes responsibi l i ty f o r i ts own foreign re la t ions , t h f s Convention s h a l l cease t o apply a s from the date of independence or of the assumption of responsibi l i ty f o r foreign re la t ions .

lt(3) When the whole or pa r t of the t e r r i to ry of a Contracting S ta te i s t ransferred t o another Contracting S ta te , t h i s Convention s h a l l con- t inue t o apply.

n(l+.) When the whole or pa r t of a non40ntract ing S ta te i s trans- fe r red t o a Contracting S ta te , t h i s Convention s h a l l apply t o the t e r r i t o r y so incorporated a s from the date of i ts incorporation, un- l e s s there is an express statement t o the contrary,

"(5) When a Contracting S ta t e takes charge of the foreign re la- t ions of the whole or pa r t of the t e r r i t o r y of a non-contracting S ta te , it w i l l be necessary t o have a declaration of the appl icat ion of the provisions of the Convention t o such t e r r i t o r y and such applfca- t i on s h a l l commence 90 days a f t e r the date of such declarat ionon

Aus t r a li a Possibly t h i s Art ic le may be bes t l e f t a s drafted, Any attempt t o

provide f o r voluntary succession by a newly-created S ta te might well lead t o considerable discussion and r e s u l t i n an unsatisfactory tex t . Under the Art ic le a s a t present drafted, when pa r t of the t e r r i t o r y t o which the Convention appl ies becomes an independent State , t h a t independent S ta te could s t f l l adhere i n i t s own r i g h t under Artfcle 33,

hi ted Na ti on8 Paragraph (1) has the advantage of i n s i s t i ng on cer ta inty, but it

prevents voluntary succession by a newly-created S ta te t o the obligations which had already been applied t o i t s t e r r i t o ry . The t r e a t i e s granting independence t o Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and others, f o r example, contained a r t i c l e s fo r the devolution of t r e a t y obligations onto the new S ta t e - a convenience which the present Art ic le of course negates.

Document no PV Ch, V%

I Proposed a r t i c l e on reservat ions I

Austra l i a I n view of the decision a t the l a s t General Assembly (of the United

Nations) on reservations, every e f fo r t should be made t o have some provisions on t h i s subject inser ted i n the proposed Convention, Of the model clauses shown i n The United Nati ons note, No. 1 i s, of course the simplest i f agreement can be obtained t o an outr ight provision prohfbit ing any rsservat ions whatever, Nos. 2 o r 3 would appear t o be sa t i s fac tory , sfnca, i n both cases, an attempt would be made t o define precise ly what reservations could be admissible, Clause 4 does not appear t o be s a t i s f ac to ry since it leaves t o $he Assembly of t he Organization the f i n a l ciecisim a s t o whether a p r t f c u l a r reservation may be admitted, and might lead t o d isputes between a reserving S t a t e and the kssembly. Clause 5, i n its present form, i s somewhat unsat is factory s ince it does not , a s the United Natfons admit,, contain a f u l l procedure f o r deallug with the e f f e c t of reservations. I n any event,, from views expressed i n the L ' n i t . d Nations, c e r t a in S t a t e s a r e unl ikely t o agree t o clause, No, 6 would likewise be unacceptable t o a number of S ta tes , Clause 7 would be unsat is factory i n t h a t i t s e f f e c t would be t o e s t ab i i sh s e t s of b i l a t e r a l re la t ionsh ips betweer, pbI; t - ~ of S ta tes , r a ther than one s ingle mu l t i l a t e r a l agreement binding a l l , I t i s a matter of polf cy, of course, how f a r reservat ions should be permitted and e i t h e r an absolute prohibi t ion a s i n Clause 1 or a c l ea r def in i t ion a s in Clause 2 or 3 would be preferred.

N o m y Proposal f u r Art ic le 34 bis :

'j(1) k t t he time of signature, r a t i f i c a t i o n or accession any S ta te may make the reservat ion tha t , instead o f the provisions of paragraph (1) of Art ic le 20, it w i l l apply the following ru les :

Actions against any person from whom payment of compensation may be claimed under the provisions of t h i s Convention may be brought only before the courts sf the Contracting S t a t e where the damage occurred, unless the pa r t i e s agree t h a t the ac t ion be brought before the courts of another Sontractfng S t a t e where a. forum i s avai lable , Such agreeuent, however, s h a l l not prejudice the r i g h t of persom claiming before the courts of the S t a t e where the damage occurred t o recover ~ompensatfon up t o the l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y applicable t o the a i r c r a f t i n accordance with t h i s Conventf on,

"(2) Any S t a t e making reservatf on i n accordance with paragraph (1) of t h i s Art ic le m y a t any time thereaf te r withdraw the reservation by communication t o this e f f e c t addressed t o the Secretary General of the ICILO."'

(Note: I f this proposal 'be adopted, there would have t o be added supplementary a r t i c l e s on no t i f i ca t ion , See models, proposed by the United ~ a t f om,)

United States. F i r s t proposal-: The United Nations i n commenting on the d r a f t

Convention recommended the addi t ion of an a r t l c l a r e l a t i n g t o reservations t o t h e Convention. The United S t a t e s endorses t h i s suggestion, It i s suggested t h a t the Conference reach a decision concerning the extent t o which reservations may be made t o t he Convention without v i t i a t i n g i t s pr inc ip les and i n s t ruc t the Draft ing Committee t o prepare an appropriate a r t i c l e , taking i n t o account t he d r a f t a r t i c l e s contained i n the I?] cornmcnts,

Second "During the course of the disoussime it has become evident t h a t various S ta tes w i l l have grea t d f f f i cu l ty fn aeceptfng eertaffn pravfsions of the Convention, Where these a r e e s sen t i a l t o the basic objective of the Convention of es tabl ishing a uniform system of' l i a b i l i t y and of l i m i t s , S t a t e s a r e faced with a necessary ehofce. However, i n mny instenees these provisions a r e not essen t ia l t o the system of l i a b i l i t y established by the Conventfan, I n order t o enable the greates t possible number of S ta tes t o become pa r t i e s to the Convention it i s desirable t o allow reservations i n cases where t o do so w i l l not v i t i a t e the pr inciples of the Convention,

I n a~cordance with the above observations the United S ta tes suggests the following proposalb f o r reservations, using a s a bqsi s Clause 111 of the "Model Reservations Clausesn submitted by the UN:

Any S ta t e may make ft ,s signature, r a t i f i c a t i o n or adherence So t h i s Conventicn conditional upon any or a l l of the following reservationsx

(a ) Any Sta te may re8erve the r i g h t notwithstanding the provisi om of Art ic le 15(7)(b) t o refuse t o allow any a i r c r a f t t o f l y over its t e r r f t s r y u n t i l f t f s s a t i sffed t h a t fisurgnce or a guarantee of a f inanc ia l ly responsible insurer or guarantor i s i n e f f ec t , or u n t i l it has been determined by an a r b i t r a l tribunal. t h a t the insurer or guarantor concerning whose f inanc ia l responsibi l i ty the S ta te had reasonable doubt i s in f a c t financfaPPy responsible i n accordance with the te rns of the Conventfon,

(b) Qny S ta t e may re f ra in from agreeing t o enforce judgments af fore%@ courts a s provided i n Article 20(4 )$ reserving the r i g h t t o apply i t s nat ional laws and procedures with respect t o the enforce.emen%b of foreign judgments,

(c) Any S ta t e may reserve from the application of the Convention damage caused by i t s a i r c r a f t used i n governmental services, provided t h a t the tsansporLation of passengers, mail, or cargo fox h f ~ e s h a l l never be considered a government services,

I n mekfng the above proposals f o r reservations, the United S ta tes has not suggested t h a t reservations be accepted in regard Lo any a s t i c l ea e m - tained i n Chapters I and 11, Although f t has been made c l ea r t h a t the United S ta t e s had not agreed with the pr inciple of absolute l i a b i l i t y and has had other d i sagreements with cer ta in a r t f cfes of Chapters I and 11, f t believes t ha t reservations t o these Chapters would prevent the effectfve appl icat ion of the Convention and therefore makes no suggestions f o r reservations from these pro- v i s f ons,

Although no suggestion f o r a reservatf on on Article 20gl) has been made, the United S ta t e s reserves the r i g h t t o submit such a reservation i f a study of the t e x t of this paragraph adopted i n the evening session on Ostcber 2i2) indicates the need for such a ~ e s e r v a t i on, Since no t e x t of the new paragraph (1) of Art ic le 20 has become avai lable a t the time these suggested reservations a r e made, it has not been possibEe t o f i l l y evaluate the possible application of t h a t para graph 0

For convenience, this proposal, which was made jus t p r io r t o the th i rd reading, i s included with the pmposals made pr ior t o and during the first reading,

(2) see vole I. page 485.

Document no I V Ch, V I

The United S t a t e s a l s o reserves t he r i g h t t o suggest a reservat ion with regard t o the r i g h t of a S t a t e not t o create a d i r e c t r i g h t of recourse aga ins t an insure r a s provided f o r i n Arti c l e 1&(2), It i s b e l t eved t h a t such r i g h t of d i r e c t recourse i s wholly unnecessary f o r the appl icat ion of the Conven- t i o n and a t the same time would require changes i n t he Paws of many Contracting S t a t e s contrary t o generally accepted doctrfneo,

Notwithstanding t he above suggestfons, the Unf%ed S t a t e s would agree t o the i n se r t i on of a reservat ions clause i n accord wfth Model Clause II of t he UN suggestions, with a spec i f i ca t ion of Ar t ic les which may not be subject t o reserva ti ons,

I n any case it is believed t h a t there should a l s o be included i n t he Convention a clause l i k e Model Clause VII f n the UN suggestions, making reservat ions subject t o acceptance by other S t a t e s p a r t i e s t o the Convention, Such a clause would of course be subject t o d r a f t i ng changes t o br ing it i n t o accord wfth the provisions of t he other ffnaP provisions sf the @onventionon

United Nations Enclosed i s a s e t of model clauses fo r determining the admissfbiPity

of reservations and the l e g a l e f f ec t of any objeotfons t h a t might be made t o reservations. I n this connectiong your a t t en t i on i s inv i ted t o paragraph (1) of Resolution 598 (vP), i n whieh t he General Assembly of the United Natf ons,

1 ° 1 , RECOMMENDS t h a t organs of the United Nations, specia l ized agenei e s and Stakes ahould, i n the course of preparing multi l a t e r a l conventions, consider the i n se r t i on there in of provisions relatPng t o the admiss%bfli ty o r non-admissibility s f reservatfons and t o the e f f e c t t o be at%rfbuted t o them;",

This recommendation, a s you know, resul ted from ser ious uneertaint5es which arose from the di f ferences of opinion among governments a s t o whether ce r t a in reserving S t a t e s were i n f a c t pa r t i e s t o the Genocide Conventfon, and a s t o %he l e g a l e f f e c t of objections t o t h e reservat ions whiah they had made t o t h a t Conven- t ion, whieh did not contain a specif fc a r tSc l e on t he subject , Our experience in carrying out depositary functions bears out the advantage of avoiding con t~oversy by the use of such an a r t i c l e ,

For your assf stance i n reviewing the d r a f t reservat ions clauses en- e lo sed , . f t f a t o be noted t h a t the f i r s t three specimens a r e qu i t e simple, the f i rst type having been used i n the Emopean Broadcasting Conventi on (Copenhagen, 19,481 and the In te rna t f onal High Frequency Bspwdcasting Agreement (Mexi eo City, 1949)~ The second prfncfple has been applied most recent ly i n the Convention on t he S t a tu s of Refugees ( ~ e n e v a , 19529, while t he t h i r d method is of t he type used i n the Revised General Be% f o r the Pac i f ic Se%tPement of In te rna t iona l Disputes (~ake Success, 19491, The four th sample shouldg i n our opinion, prove very useful i n fn te rna t f onal organ% z a t i ons, whfch can o f f e r g rea t f l e x i b i l i t y i n examining the s ignif icance of a reservat ion and i t s compatibil i ty with a convention by ea r ly exchange of views w i t h h an appropriate organ, thus avoiding the pmcertafntfes t h a t r e s u l t from correspondence between the organization and many govemment~ separate ly ,

The f i f t h example attempts t o codify the r u l e heretofore fol$wed by the League of Nations and United Nations Sec re t a r i a t s , For s impl ic i ty both of d ra f t fng and of operation, however, t h i s clause does not purport t o give Pegal force t o a reservat ion made a t signature o r t o an objection thereto, allowing such a reservation merely t o serve a s f a c t u a l not ice u n t i l a l ega l determination can be made by the procedure it es tab l i shes a t t he t i n e of r a t f f f - cation, A f u l l procedure f o r deal ing with reservat ions a t s ignature can be provided, of course, b u t it makes f o r a more cumbersome ar%f c le ,

Document no IV Ch, Vb

The s i x t h model clause i s the same a s the f i f t h , but i n addit ion embodies t he proposal made by the In te rna t iona l Law Commission tn i t s repor t on t h e subject of reservat ions t o t he Sixth Session of the General Assembly, and i s intended t o enable signatory S t a t e s t o object t o reservations within a reasonable time IimLt, Otherwise, however, both t he f i f t h and s i x t h samples follow the c l a s s i c contractual concept of a mu l t i l a t e r a l convention i n requir ing t ha t a S t a t e may become a pa r t3 t o a convention subject t o a reservat ion only i f a l l the S t a t e s having a d i r e c t i n t e r e s t i n the convention expressly or t a c i t l y consent thereto ,

The seventh and l a s t rnde1,cfanse follows t h a t contained i n the Conventi on on the Declaration of Death of Missing Persons ( ~ a k e Success, 1950). Its pr inc ip le i s e s sen t i a l l y the same a s t h a t previously adopted by t he Pan- American Union, It seems most su i t ab l e where a convention es tab l i shes s e t s of b i l a t e r a l re la t ionsh ips between any given p a i r of S t a t e s p a r t i e s thereto , so t h a t the conventfon can e f fec t ive ly be i n force between some p a i r s of p a r t i e s and not be tween others ,

MODEL RESERVATIONS CLAUSES

CLAUSE I

No reservat ions may be made t o t h i s Convention,

CLAUSE I1

(1) A t t h e time of signature, r a t i f i c a t i o n o r accession any S t a t e may make reservat ions t o any a r t i c l e s of t h i s Convention other than t o Ar t ic les

(2) Any S t a t e making a reservat ion i n accordance wi th paragraph (1) of t h i s Ar t ic le may a t any time t he r ea f t e r withdraw the reservation by communication t o this e f f e c t addressed t o the Secretary General,

CLAUSE 111

Any S t a t e may make i t s signature, r a t i f i c a t i o n or accession t o t h i s Conventfon condi t ional upon any of the reservat ions exhaustively enumerated a s follows :

Any S t a t e may make i t s r a t i f i c a t i o n or accession t o t h i s Convention condi t ional upon any res6rvat ion which i s approved by the Assembly of the Organi- zation by a vote of two-thirds b h r e e - f o u r t h d of i ts membership.

CLAUSE V

(1) I n the event t h a t any S t a t e submits a reservat ion t o any of t he Br t fc les of this Conventi on a t the time of signature, r a t i f i c a t i o n or accessf on, the Secretary General s h a l l communicate t he t e x t of such reservat ion t o a l l S t a t e s which a r e or may become p a r t i e s t o this Conventf on, I n the case of a r e se rva t i on made a t the time of r a t i f i c a t i o n o r accession, any S t a t e which has theretofore r a t i f i e d o r acceded (or, i f t he Conventfon has not entered i n t o force , which has r a t i f i e d or acceded by the da te of determining i t s en t ry i n t o force) , s h a l l have the r i g h t t o object t o any such reservat ion. I f no objection i s received by the Secretary General from any S t a t e e n t i t l e d t o object by the t h day from the date of h i s communication ( o r by the da te of determining t he en t ry i n t o force, whichever i s the l a t e r ) , the r e se rva t i on s h a l l be deemed t o be accepted,

Document no I V Ch, V I

(2) I n the event of an objection being received by the Secretary General from any such S t a t e he s h a l l no t i fy the S t a t e making the reservation of such objec- t ion, and request it t o inform him whether it i s prepared t o r a t i f y or accede without the reservat ion o r whether it pre fe rs t o abs t a in from r a t i f i c a t i o n o r accession.

CLAUSE VI

(1) I n the event t h a t any S t a t e submits a reservat ion t o any of the Ar t ic les of t h i s Convention a t the time of signature, r a t i f i c a t i o n o r accession, the Secretary General s h a l l communicate the t e x t of such reservat ion t o a l l S t a t e s which a r e or may become p a r t i e s t o t h i s Convention, I n the case of a reservation rmde a t the time of r a t i f i c a t i o n or accession, any S t a t e which has theretofore signed, r a t i f i e d o r acceded (or , i f the Convention has not entered i n t o force, which has signed, r a t i f i e d or acceded by t he date of determining i t s en t ry i n t o force) , s h a l l have t he r i g h t t o object t o any such reservat ion, If no objection i s received by the Secretary General from any S t a t e e n t i t l e d t o object by the

t h day from the date of h i s communication (or from the da te of determining the entry i n t o force , whichever i s the l a t e r ) , the reservat ion s h a l l be deemed t o be accepted.

( 2) I n tbe event of an objection being received by the Secretary General from any such S t a t e he s h a l l no t i fy the S t a t e making the reservat ion of such objection, and request it t o inform him whether it i s prepared t o r a t i f y or accede without t he reservation o r whether it pre fe rs t o absta in from r a t i f i c a t i o n or access1 on,

(3 An objection by a signatory S t a t e , however, s h a l l cease t o have the e f f e c t of excluding the S t a t e making the reservation from becoming a par ty t o the Convention i f , within a period of twelve months from the date of making i t s objection b f th ree years from the date of i t s s i e n a t u r d , the objecting S t a t e has not r a t i f i e d the Convention,

CLAUSE V I I

I n the event t h a t any S t a t e submits a reservation t o any of the Art ic les of t h i s Convention a t the time of signature, r a t i f i c a t i o n or accessiori, the Secretary General s h a l l ~ o m m ~ i c a t e the xext of the reservat ion t o a l l S t a t e s which a r e o r may became p a r t i e s t o t h i s Convention, Any S t a t e which objects t o the reservat ion may, within a period of days from t h e date of the said communication (o r upon the date of i t s becoming a par ty t o the Convention), no t i fy the Secretary General t h a t it does not accept it, I n such case the Convention s h a l l not en te r i n t o force a s between such S t a t e and t he S t a t e making the reservati on,

- 177 -

D O C U M E N T N O V

COMMENTS

BY THE ICAO COUNCIL

on the

DRAFT CONVENTION ON DAMAGE CAUSED BY FOREIGN AIRCRAFT

TO THIRD PARTIES ON THE SURFACE(^)

(1) These comments were prepared by the Air Transport Committee o f ICAO during the 14th Session o f Council and approved by Council on 12 December 19510

Document n Q 2

A, THE LIABILITY LIMITS I N &TICLE 11 o o o o o o 181

Objectives of t h i s P a r t o f theconvention a o o 181 S t a t i s t i c a l Material o o o O o o D o o O 182 TheBasis of CsuncilQsComments 182 Cost t o Aircraf t Operators of Third Party Insurance 0 o 183 Limits Necessary t o Cover a l l but Catastrophic Accidents . . . The Case fo r Increasing the W t s o O O o O o o O

184

The Case f o r Retaining the ISmits i n the Mexico City Draft 184

o 185 T h e S c a l e o f L i a b ~ l i t y L f m d t s . . 186 AlternativeScalesofLiabilityWlmits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 186 TheSub-Limitof 300,000Francs per Person 0 0 187 Diagram - Comparison of the Limits of Liabi l i ty Proposed i n the Mexico

City Draft Convention with those Set Forth on Page 186 0 0 188

The Issues Involved O O D O o o o O o o 189 M o d i f f a a t i o n o r D e l e t i o n o f A r t i c l e 1 5 o 190 Practical Improvements i n Article 15 . O o O o 0 0 0 ~ 190 The Incorporation of the Cert i f icate i n the Convention . o 191 The Provision of Foreign Currency to Pay Compensation under the Convention 191

. The Appropriate Governmental Authority i n Insurance Matters 191 Guarantee by the S ta t e of Registry of the Aircraft as an Alternative t o Insurance . O O O O o O O O o O O O O O 192

APPENDIX I. - General conclusions from material provided by States and others 193

APPENDIX 11, - Calculations based on specif ic cases reported by States showing the e f f ec t on t o t a l operating costs of adopting (1) the l i a b i l i t y limits proposed i n the Mexico City Draft Convention; (2) l i a b i l i t y limits double those proposed i n the Mexico Clty Draft Convention 0 0 o 195

APPeNDM: 111, - Analysis of claims i n respect of damage t o th i rd par t ies reported by States o o O o o o o 198

* APPENDXX N o - Resolution on burdensome insurance requirements adopted by

Council a t i t s 16th Meeting, 11th Session (F'art 11) on 6 December 1950 202

Document 21

COMMENTS BY THE C O U N N - OF THE

CONVENTION ON DAMAGE CAUSED BY FOREIGN

ElsFT TO THIRD PARTIES ON THE SURFACE

1. When the Legal Committee, a t i t s 7 th session a t Mexico City, completed i t s f i n a l d r a f t of t h s Convention on damage caused by foreign a i r c r a f t t o third par t ies on the surface, and presented the d r a f t t o Council f o r c i rcu la t ion to S ta tes it recommended ;that Council should make such comments on the d r a f t a s it deemed appropriate. 1 :

2, The repor t of the Chairman of the Legal Committee made i t c l ea r t ha t the type of comments which the Committee had i n mind rela ted t o the l i m i t s of l i a b i l i t y ( ~ r t i c l e 11) and the provisions regarding the securi ty f o r the operatoras l i a b i l i t y (chapter =I) on which there had been deep divergence of views within the Legal Committee, The report of the Chairman a l so s ta ted t h a t the Committee, while considering t h a t i t s work on the d r a f t convention had progressed t o the point when it was believed t o be ready f o r submission e i t h e r t o the Assembly o r t o a diplomatic conference f o r f i na l i za t ion and opening f o r signature, nevertheless recognized t h a t there were incorporated i n this d r a f t convention cer ta in decisions on matters of an economic and policy nature which should properly be reviewed by the Council. (2 1

3, The Council has therefore given spec ia l consideration to these par ts of the d ra f t , analyzing the i s sues involved and preparing a number of comments on them which i t i s hoped will be of assistance t o Contractf'ng States ,

Objectives of this Pa r t of the Conventfo~l.

40 The Mexico C i t y d r a f t comrentfon, l i k e the or ig ina l Rome Convention i t s e l f , attempts t o regulate and es tab l i sh uniformity with respect t o the l i a b i l i t y of a i r c r a f t operators to persons on %he surface who sustain injury, death, o r property darnaggt a s a r e s u l t of a i r c r a f t accidents involving foreign a i r c r a f t , I n framing such a Convention, S t a t e s w i l l wfsh t o balance the legit imate i n s t e r e s t s and des i res of a i r c r a f t operators engaged i n in te rna t iona l a i r navigation against those of the general public who may suf fe r a s thi rd par t ies i n accidents involving foreign a i r c r a f t ,

(1) Volume 7, Minutes and Documents ICAO Legal. Cr::r~iir:~cie, page 33y0 (2) UP page 3'79e

Document no V

5 0 The aperator needs protection against the r i s k of catastrophic l o s s and the d r a f t Convention accords him this protect ion by providing t h a t i n no one accident s h a l l h i s l i a b i l i t y t o th i rd p a r t i e s on the surface exceed a ce r t a in maximum f igure , regardless of the amount of damage done, save i n the exceptional eases where he intended t o cause the damage o r where he was the person who had wrongfully taken and was making use of an a i r c r a f t without the consent of the person en t i t l ed t o use it, The d r a f t convention affords addi t ional protect ion t o the operator by providing spec i a l l im i t a t i on on the amount of h i s l i a b i l i t y , f o r personal i n ju ry o r death, t o aqy one person,,

6, The th i rd party on the surface, on the other hand, needs assurance t h a t i n accidents i n which he s u f f e r s loss, he w i l l be able t o recover, with a minimum of l i t i g a t i o n , the f u l l amount of h i s damages, The convention seeks t~ afford him t h i s protect ion by providing t ha t he nay sue i n the courts of the place where the damage occurred, by giving him r i g h t s of d i r e c t action against the insurer i n c e r t a i n cases, by taking from the operator the defence of %a negligencett which i s now avai l - able t o him i n a number of jur isdic t ions , and by s e t t i ng l i a b i l i t y l im i t s a t a l e v e l which the d r a f t e r s hoped would i n a l l normal oases be su f f i c i en t t o assure him f u l l recovery of h i s damages, The acceptabi l i ty of such a convention t o S ta tes w i l l depend i n the l a s t analys is upon the extent t o which the d r a f t e r s succeed i n s t r i k i n g an equitable balance between the i n t e r e s t s of the respective par t i es ,

7, I n studying the limits of l i a b i l i t y the Council had a t i t s disposal a considerable quant i ty of s t a t i s t i c a l mater ia l supplied by S t a t e s and others concerning the cos t of insurance and pas t experience of th i rd party claims i n f ly ing accidents, The most important pa r t s of t h i s in fomat ion a r e presented i n tabular f o m i n Appendices I, I1 and =Io The amount of mate r ia l concerning damage t o th i rd p a r t i e s i n a i r c r a f t accidents is l imited, owing t o the infrequency of accidents i n which claims f o r such damage are asserted, %nfomat ion a s t o the cos t of th i rd pasty insurance i s somwhat more sa t i s fac tory , but s t i l l not conclusive, Taken a s a whole, this s t a t i s t i c a l mater ia l a f fo rds a bas i s f o r a broader f a c t u a l analys is of the i s sues than has h i t he r to been available, but it must constantly be borne i n mind t h a t no precise conclusfons can be drawn and t ha t it i s possible t o hold more than one opinion concerning the extent t o which such m t e r i a l can be umd t o p red ic t the trend of accidents involving th i rd par ty damage i n the future ,

The Basis of Councilss Comments

8 a Xn framing comments on the l i a b i l i t y limits i n the d r a f t coment i on, two t rends of opinion emerged i n Gouncil, the one holding t h a t the limits should be sub- s t a n t i a l l y increased, t he o ther that they should be retained a t apprsxba te ly t he l e v e l i n the d r a f t , There waslD however, general agreement t h a t the two chief f a c t o r s t o be taken i n t o account i n considering $he l e v e l a t which such limits should be s e t were 3

( a ) t he limits should not be s a t so high a s t o cause the cos t of th i rd party insurance t o become an excessive burden on in te rna t iona l c i v i l av ia t ion j

(b) the limits should be s e t high enough t o cover compnsation t o th i rd pa r t i e s i n a l l but extremely r a r e catastrophic accidents,

9 a There was broad agreement a l s o t h a t the influence of the f i r s t of these two f ac to r s was not s t rong up t o l eve l s of l i a b i l i t y limits considerably higher than those under discussion, The disagreement l ay ch ie f ly i n the evaluation and applica- t i o n of the second f ac to ro

Document no V

Cost t o Aircraft OPerators of Third Party Insurance

3.0, The available s t a t i s t i c a l data indicate c lear ly that , under existing conditions, the cost of third party insurance under the provisions of the Mexico City d ra f t would generally be a small proportion of t o t d insurance cos ts f o r an a i r c r a f t operator and an almost negligible par t of h i s t o t d operating costs, Of the r a t e s reported f o r third party insurance f o r commercial aircraft i n several different par t s of the world, none represented more than 0,06 cents (UoS,) per ton- mile avaflable, even f o r l imi t s double those i n the Mexico City draf t , Rates f o r private operators are re la t ive ly higher owing to the cumparatively small figure of t h e i r t o t a l operating costs and the low u t i l i za t ion of t h e i r a i rc raf t ; r a t e s reported t o Council f o r third party insurance costs.for private operators varied between 2 and 5 per cent of estimated operating costs f o r l i a b i l i t y limits such a s those i n the Mexico City d ra f t ,

11, The insurers emphasize tha t future premium ra tes f o r a i r c r a f t third party insurance cannot be predicted with cer tainty and tha t the low r a t e s now current night be increased i f a se r i e s of accidents occurred involving large payments t o third par t ieso It is impossible t o predict a l so the e f fec ts on insurance costs of the provisions i n the Convention re la t ing t o absolute l i a b i l i t y , the granting of jurisdiction t o the State where the damage occurs, and the r igh t of d i r ec t action against the insurers i n cer tain cases, Sme insurers believe, however, t ha t these provisions w i l l cause substant ial increases i n the cost of third party insurance both by increasing the costs of l i t i g a t i o n and by tending t o ra i se the amounts of compensa- t i on claimed and awarded,

12, There are, however, other factors tending towards the reduction of the cost of third party Insurance f o r a i r c ra f t , I n the f i r s t place the number of a i r c ra f t accidents i n r e l a t ion t o the amount of f lying done constantly tends t o decrease as the quality and efficiency of a i r c r a f t construction, maintenance and operation improve,

decrease i n %enumber of accidents per a i r c r a f t will ultimately produce a decrease i n insurance premiums f o r third party insurance a s well as f o r other forms of aviation insurance, I n the second l a c e the growing experience of third party r i s k s gained by the insurers a s the volume of f ly ing increases should tend to produce a s tab i l iza t ion of the market and hence to reduce third party insurance rates, For some operators the limits proposed i n the Mexico City d ra f t would be considerably below the l imi ts of t h e i r present third party insurance l imi t s and a premium reduction might r e su l t ta these operators on t h i s account,

13, Making due allowance f o r the e f fec t of these various factors , i t would seem f a i r l y ce r t a in that although the cost of th i rd party insurance under the provisions of the Mexico City d r a f t Convention might be increased, it s t i l l would not impose an undue burden on a i r c r a f t operators, and that, a t l eas t f o r commercial operators, the l i a b i l i t y l imi t s i n the Convention might be substant ial ly raised without tRis part of t h e i r operating cos ts becomi.:~ excessive, The cost of third party insurance t o private operators of a i rc raf t , however, i s a considerably higher proportion of operatfag costs and an increase i n Inab i l i t y llmits might impose burdens of cost on this section of aviation tha t would seriously impede i t s development,

L i e It has been suggested t h a t a increase i n the Piabi l f ty limits substantially above those proposed i n & t i c l e .Up would produce overall limits f o r the la rger a i rc raf t so high as to s t r a i n the inswarice market, It seems, however, t h a t the insurers do not believe tha t t h i s would occur as long as existing conditions prevail,

Limits l ecessa ry t o Cover a11 bu t Ca-baSt%~phi~ Accidents

15 o The information i n the Appendices shows c l ea r ly t h a t a i r c r a f t accidents involving la rge t h i r d par ty claims occur infrequently. Out of over 2,000 accidents i n the B r i t i s h Royal A i r Force, only 12%. caused t h i r d par ty damage o r casua l t i es and i n t h e va s t majority of cases the damage done was minor. I n 118 of these accidents only property damage was done, and i n the remaining six where in ju ry was caused t o persons, the casua l t i es were one dead and e igh t injured, Reports from S ta t e s concerning 23 accidents t h a t cause6 subs tan t ia l t h i r d par ty damage include only two instances i n which the elaims paid and outstanding exceeded the l i m i t s i n the Mexico City d r a f t f o r the a i r c r a f t involved,

16. This informatfon does not , however, pofnt d i r e c t l y t o any exact conclu- s ion a s t o where the l i a b i l f t y Limits should be s e t so a s t o cover a l l but r a r e catas t rophic accidents. I n the f i r s t place, f.t i s possible t o disagree a s t o what cons t i tu tes a catastrophic accident; in the second place pas t experience a s t o t he frequency of accidents causing la rge t h i r d par ty damage is inadequate t o p red ic t t h e i r incidence i n the fu ture , It i s c l ea r t h a t a t whatever l e v e l t he l i a b i l i t y l i m i t s a r e established, t he pos s ib i l i t y w i l l s t i l l e x i s t t h a t accidents may occur where legi t imate compensation f o r t h i r d par ty damage w i l l be g rea te r than those l i m i t s , t h a t is t o say, where the t h i r d pa r t i e s concerned w i l l not be ab le t o obtain f u l l compensation, I t i s a l s o c l ea r t h a t the higher the l fmi t s a r e placed the smaller t h a t p o s s i b i l i t y w i l l become and the more near ly the compensation paid i n such cases w i l l approach t o the f u l l compensation leve l . The Legal @ommit$ee has ra ised the l i m i t s from those proposed i n the o r ig ina l Rome d r a f t of the Convention t o those now i n the Mexico City d ra f t . The divergence of opinion i s a s t o whether they should be fu r the r ra i sed o r not , Council bel ieves t h a t it w i l l be of ass i s tance to Contracting S t a t e s t o have a b r i e f ana lys i s of the arguments t h a t cause t h i s divergence of opinion.

The Case f o r Increasing the-Lim%ts

17. Those who favour increasing the Xiab i l i ty l i m i t s point out t h a t the cos t of t h i r d par ty insurance, a t l e a s t t o commercial operators, i s very small and would s t i l l be small with much higher l i m i t s than those i n the Mexico City d r a f t . They bel ieve t h a t the l i m i t s should be subs tan t ia l ly increased and could be s o increased without placing an unreasonable insurance burden on a i r c r a f t operators o r an excessive s t r a i n on t he insurance market. They point out t h a t accidents causing t h i rd par ty damage greater than the l i m i t s i n the Mexico City d r a f t have o c c m e d i n the past ; i n the case of the two most ser ious t h i rd par ty accidents which have been brought t o the Council's a t t en t ion , the present Mexico City l i m i t s , i f applicable, would have resul ted i n grossly inadequate compensation t o the damaged t h i r d pa r t i e s , amounting i n one case t o approximately one- f i f t h of t h e i r losses and i n the other case t o approximately one-eighth of t h e i r losses . They believe t h a t it is only reasonable t o assume t h a t such accidents w i l l occur again i n the future , They point t o the rapid growth of l a rge i n d u s t r i a l i n s t a l l a t i o n s t h a t might be destroyed by f i r e caused by an a i r c r a f t accident; t o the pos s ib i l i t y of an a i r c r a f t crashing i n t o a l a rge publfc audience or other l a rge co l lec t ion of people; and t o the growing recognit ion of the value of human l i f e a s re f lec ted i n increasing compensa- t i o n awarded iri cases of death o r permanent in jury, They f e e l t h a t S t a t e s w i l l be mindful of the legi t imate demands f o r the protection of the general public, and t h a t they w i l l not surrender t he r i g h t s which the c f t i zens of most S t a t e s now have t o claim f u l l compensa- t i o n f o r losses caused by foreign a i r c r a f t , unless a very strong case can be made t h a t i t would be unfa i r t o ask the operators of those a i r c r a f t t o pay t he necessarg insurance premiums t o cover f u l l compensation, They bel ieve t h a t av ia t ion has now become an accepted medium of t ranspor t and t h a t i t s fu r ther development depends l e s s on spec ia l pr ivi leges , than on i t s a b i l i t y t o rnalntafn the confidence of t he public. They hold t h a t it i s not i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t of in ternat ional c f v f l av ia t ion t o accord t o it pr iv i leges which cannot be j u s t i f i ed by s o m d technical and economic analysis .

18. They f ind t h a t on t he ba s i s of data ava i lab le t o t he Council, t he l i m i t s proposed i n the Mexico City d r a f t a r e * jus t i f i ab ly low and should be generally increased f o r a l l a i r c r a f t , except those i n the smallest weight c l a s s , As discussed eslewhere i n t h i s paper, they recognize t h a t the smaller types of a i r c r a f t can cause personal in ju ry and death, a s d i s t i n c t from property damage, dispropor- t i ona t e t o t h e i r weights. For t h i s reason they have recommended higher per k i logramme l i m i t s f o r t he smaller a i r c r a f t , and have recommended successively decreasing l i m i t s per kilogramme f o r the successively l a rge r weights of a i r c r a f t . They propose t h a t t h e increase of l i a b i l i t y with weight should commence a t a lower weight l i m i t (1,000 kilogrammes) and thus operate f o r a l l a i r c r a f t except those of the smallest weight c lass , i o e o , generally t he two-seater p r iva te a i r c r a f t . Recognizing t h a t t he burden of insurance cos t s is heavier f o r small pr iva te ly owned a i r c r a f t i n t he smallest weight c lass , they propose no increase i n the limit of l i a b i l i t y appl icable t o such a i r c r a f t .

19 e They can see no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r f i x i n g an absolute upper l i m i t t o the l i a b i l i t y l i m i t s a t 10 mill ion francs, a l i m i t which abrupt ly ceases t o bear a f ixed r e l a t i o n t o the weight of a i r c r a f t , Ai rc ra f t a r e now being constructed and others w i l l be b u i l t during the period i n which the Convention i s e f f ec t i ve which w i l l considerably exceed i n weight, and therefore i n p o t e n t i a l destructiveness, t he l a r g e s t a i r c r a f t now i n operation. It i s recognized however, t h a t the r a t e of increase of po t en t i a l destructiveness w i l l probably tend t o diminish a s the weight of a i r c r a f t increases beyond t h a t of the l a r g e s t types now i n general use, and it 3.9 f o r t h i s reason t h a t they recommend a lower r a t e of increase i n t he limit of l i a b i l i t y per kilogramme f o r a i r c r a f t weighing i n excess of 50,000 kilogrammes.

20 , These considerations l ed t o Proposal B i n paragraph 26 below.

The Case f o r Retaining t he Limits i n the Mexico City Draf t

21 , Those who favour r e t a in ing l i a b i l i t y l i m i t s approximating those i n the Mexico City d r a f t consider t h e proposed Convention a s primarily designed t o e s t ab l i sh a f a i r re la t ionsh ip between operator and t h i r d par ty i n given circumstances, Accordingly, co s t t o the operator is not the f i r s t consideration, The nature of the re la t ionsh ip es tabl ished i s the f irst consideration, I n t h i s connection they a t t a ch importance t o t h e other provisions of t h e Convention which a f f e c t the conditions i n which the l i a b i l i t y w i l l be l iquidated, such a s absolute l i a b i l i t y , ju r i sd ic t ion i n t he country where t he damage occurs, l imi ted defence t o the operator, and d i r e c t access t o t he insure rs i n ce r t a in cases. They consider t h a t the limits of l i a b i l i t y should no t be s e t unnecessarily high, bu t a t a l e v e l which experience and judgment f a d i ca te t o be adequate t o meet a l l n o r m 1 cases,

22, They attached considerable import+cux t o the information concerning pas t experience, which i n t h e i r view demonstrates t he r a r i t y of accidents a f f ec t i ng t h i r d par t i es ; t h a t i n such accidents it is property, and not persons, which i s damaged i n t h e overwhelming majority of instances; and t h a t moreover i n a l l cases of which informatf on i s ava i lab le , save two i n North America, the proposed l i m i t s would be more than adequate, They f e e l a l s o t h a t account should be taken of varying cos t l eve l s i n d i f f e r en t p a r t s of t he world, They note t h a t it i s only i n North America t h a t the re is any evidence of a case i n which the pro?osed l i m i t s would not suf f ice , and i n this respect they consider t h a t an equilibrium must be s e t between the high cost and the low cos t areas of t he world,

23. They consider t h a t these l i m i t s represent an acceptable compromise between the views of various S ta tes . They point out t h a t the decision taken t o r a i s e t he l imf t s from those i n the o r ig ina l Rome Convention t o those i n the Mexico City d r a f t has not been unanimous and t h a t some S t a t e s favoured lower l i m i t s than those now i n the Mexico City d r a f t , They consider t h a t the economic evidence brought before Council subsequent t o the l a s t meeting of t he Legal Committee does not j u s t i f y any

!

modification of the decision reached a t Mexico Cfty,

Document no V -

& These considerations l ed t o Proposal A i n paragraph 26 below,

The Scale of L iab i l i t y Limits

25, The r e l a t fng of the l i a b i l i t y l fmfts f o r d i f fe ren t types of a i r c r a f t t o the weight of the a i r c r a f t concerned, a s proposed i n the Mexico City d ra f t , i s generally agreed t o accord approximately with the po ten t ia l of each type of a i r c r a f t t o cause damage t o t h i rd pa r t i e s on the surface i f an accident occurs, It i s recognized, however, t h a t t h i s general ru l e is subject t o cer ta in exceptions. Small and-medium a i r c r a f t , f o r example, may cause in jury and death, a s d i s t i n c t from property damage, i n somewhat greater proportion t o t h e i r weights, Taking account of t h i s f ac t , the Council agrees t h a t the proportion of weight t o l i a b i l i t y l i m i t may vary f o r d i f f e r en t c lasses of a i r c r a f t a s it does i n the scale of l i m i t s proposed i n the Mexico City d r a f t Convention, bu t f e e l s it desirable t h a t the l i m i t s should increase without abrupt changes throughout the scale of weights. The introduction of the fixed l i m i t f o r a i r c r a f t weighing more than 2,000 but not exceeding 6,000 kilogrammes i n paragraph (1) (b) of Art ic le 11 causes an undesirable discontinuity a t the 2,000 kilogramme point . Aircraf t jus t below t h a t weight would have a l i a b i l i t y l i m i t of 500,000 francs, -afFcraf t just above t h a t weight would have a l i a b i l i t y l i m i t of 15500,000 francs although the difference i n the a b i l i t y t o cause damage between the two types of a i r c r a f t might be small, Council agreed t h a t t h i s discontinuity should be removed,

Alternative Scales of L iab i l i t y Limits

26, I n the course of examining the l i a b i l i t y l i m i t s i n the d r a f t Convention, Council considered a number of spec i f ic proposals f o r modiffcations of these l i m i t s , The following proposals a r e repommended t o S ta tes a s worth fur ther study since they i l l u s t r a t e the two trends of opinion mentioned above (see graph p, 10).

P r o ~ o s a l A - This proposal aims t o r e t a in the general l eve l of limits i n the Mexico City d r a f t and merely t o eliminate the discont inui ty a t the 2,000 kilogramme leve l , It would be achieved by subs t i tu t ing the following f o r sub-paragraph (b) i n paragraph (1) of Article 11:

(b) 500,000 francst plus 258 francs per kilogramme over 2,000 kilogrammes f o r a i r c r a f t weighing more than 2,000, but not exceeding 6,000 kilogrammes,

- This proposal aims t o elimfnate the discontinuity a t the 2,000 kilogramme leve l , t o increase the limits subs tan t ia l ly f o r a l l a i r c r a f t except those of l e s s than 1,000 kilogrammes and t o permit the l fmi t s t o r i s e eontinumsly with weight f o r the l a rge r a i r c r a f t , It would be achieved by subs t i tu t ing f o r sub-paragraphs (a) , (b) and ( c ) of paragraph (1) of Art ic le 11, the f ollowfng sub-para graphs :

(a) 500,000 francs fo r a i r c r a f t weighfng 1,000 kilogrammes o r l e s s ;

(b) 500,000 francs plus &00 francs per kilogramme over 1,000 kilogrammes f o r a i r c r a f t wefghing more than l ,OOO, but not exceedf ng 6,000 k i logrammes ;

(c) 2,500,000 francs plus 250 francs per kilogramme over 6,000 kilogrammes fo r a i r c r a f t weighing more than 6,000, but not exceeding 20,000 kilogrammes;

t The franc used i n the Convention. and def'i ned i n Ar t ic le 11 (4) thereof, equals U,S. $0 56335, as indicated by tho International Monetary Fund.

Document no V

(d) 6,OC10,000 francs plus 150 francs per kilogramme over 20,000 kilogrammes f o r a i r c r a f t weighing more than 20,000 but not exceeding 50,000 kilogrammes,

(e) 10,500,000 francs plus 100 francs per kilogramme over 50,000 kilogrammes f o r a i r c r a f t weighing more than 50,000 kilogrammes .

The Sub-Limit of 300,000 F'rancs per Person

27. Proposals have been made tha t the sub-limit of 300,000 francs per person k i l led or injured i n paragraph (2) of Article 11 should be deleted, The Council recognizes the importance of t h i s question but f ee l s tha t the issues rafsqd by the individual l i m i t of 300,000 francs per person k i l led or injured a re largely l ega l i n t h e i r implications and tha t the Council i s not i n possession of any information on t h i s point not available t o the Legal Committee. The Council has therefore decided tha t it i s not i n a posit ion t o give advice t o S ta tes a s t o t h i s limit 0

Document no V

COWARISOK OF THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY PROPOSED I N THX FEXICO CITY DRAFT CGXVENTION WITH THOSE SET E'ORTH ON PAGE 186

/ /

/ /9

P /

/

Proposal B .I I

# a /

cr a/

P /

P /

Vultee Brabazon

- Mexico City Draft Convention

./ proposed l i m i t s /

0 0 I

Constelfation

.i 1 -i

\ Martin 202

Yaximum limits of l i a b i l f t y (000 f r s , )

15 000

12,SQQ

10,000

I 79503 ,

03 03

t

5,WO

(Aircraf t weight : 000 kg)

Note:- I n t h i s diagram the heavy l i n e shows the re la t ionship between l i a b i l i t y limits and a i r c r a f t weight a s proposed i n Art ic le 11 of the Mexico City Draft. The small dotted l i n e a t t h e extreme l e f t shows the r e s u l t of Proposal A on page 9 which merely eliminates the discontinuity a t the 2,000 kilogramme point, The broken l i n e shows the e f f ec t of Proposal B on page 9 , which subs tan t ia l ly increases the limits f o r a l l types of a i r c r a f t other than those weighing l e s s than about 4,000 kilogrames. For the la rger types of a i r c r a f t the l imi t s given by Proposal B a r e approximtely equivalent t o the limits agreed a t the Taormina Conference f o r cases involving negligence. Under the blexico City Draft, such cases have the s m e l i a b i l i t y limits a s those not involving negligence,

(Chapter XI1 of the Dra f t Convention)

The I s sues Involved

28. The b a s i c i s sues i n Chapter I11 of t h e Convention a r e whether t h e Conventfon should include provisions ind ica t ing t h a t s ignatory S t a t e s would accept c e r t a i n spec i f i ed proofs t h a t a i r c r a f t wishing t o f l y over t h e i r t e r r i t o r y were adequately insured according t o t h e terms of t h e Convention, and if such provisions a r e t o be included, what forms of proof should be spec i f i ed t o be acceptable,

29. I n order t o give f u l l s e c u r i t y t o any damaged t h i r d party, proofs would be required:

(a) t h a t t h e operator was insured f o r t h e a i r c r a f t i n quest ion a g a i n s t h i s l i a b i l i t y under the Convention;

(b) t h a t t h e i n s u r e r was f i n a n c i a l l y sound and a b l e t o meet h i s commitments;

(c) t h a t the necessary fore ign exchange would be made a v a i l a b l e s o t h a t t h e compensation could be paid i n the currency of the t h i r d party.

30. Proofs of t h i s nature t h a t w i l l be acceptable t o a fore ign StBte a r e not always easy f o r opera tors t o obtafn, and Council has a l ready made recommendations t o Contract ing S t a t e s aimed a t reducing the requirements f o r such proofs t o t h e minimum i n t h e i n t e r e s t s of f a c i l i t a t i n e i n t e r n a t i o n a l a i r navf ga ti on, These recommendations were incorpo ed i n the reso lu t ion adopted by t h e Council i n December 1950 (See Appendix IV) faj The Legal Committee s tudied t h f s r eso lu t ion while developing Chapter I11 of t h e d r a f t Conventfon, and Ar t i c le 15 i s d ra f t ed i n somewhat s imi la r terms t o those of t h e Councilss resolut ion. The d r a f t i n g i n the Convention d i f f e r s from t h a t i n t h e Resolution, however, i n the following important r e spec t s ;

The d r a f t Convention provides t h a t S t a t e s overflown may require an over-f lying a i r c r a f t t o c a r r y a c e r t i f i c a t e from i t s S t a t e of r e p i s t r g c e r t i f y i n g t h a t s a t i s f a c t o r y insurance has been e f fec ted f o r t h a t a i r c r a f t ; the Council r e so lu t ioq recommends t h a t S t a t e s should not r equ i re more than a c e r t i f i c a t e t o t h i s e f f e c t issued by t h e insure r ;

The d r a f t Convention provides t h a t S t a t e s overflown s h a l l accept v e r i f i c a t i o n by t h e S t a t e of t h e a i r c r a f t s s r e ~ i s t r x t h a t the insure r i s f i n a n c i a l l y responsible; t h e Council r e s o l u t i o n makes no recommendation a s t o what proof of t h e i n s w e r e s f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y should be always acceptable, and ind ica tes t h a t i n cases of reasonable doubt a S t a t e overflown might r equ i re evidence from the i n s u r e r a s t o h i s f i n a n c i a l r e spons ib i l i ty , and a c e r t i f i c a t e from the appropr ia te au thor i ty i n h i s government t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t o e f f e c t suah insurance.

The provisions of Ar t i c le 15 of t h e d r a f t Convention thus speci fy i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l what s ignatory S t a t e s w i l l accept a s proof t h a t an over-flying a i r c r a f t is s a t i s f a c t o r i l y insured and leaves them l e s s free t o requ i re f u r t h e r proofs where they a r e no t s a t i s f i e d . I t ts t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n which i s c h i e f l y objected t o by those who f i n d Ar t i c le 15 of t h e d r a f t Convention unacceptable, s ince they f e e l t h a t i n t h e l a s t a n a l y s i s t h e S t a t e overflown must have t h e r i g h t t o assure i t s e l f t h a t an over- f l y i n g a i r c r a f t is so insured t h a t any damage caused by it w i l l be f u l l y and s a t i s - f a c t o r i l y compensated. On t h e o ther hand, it i s genera l ly recognized t h a t i f S t a t e s a r e f r e e t o requ i re any form of proof concerning t h e insurance of over-flying a i r c r a f t , the re i s a p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e proofs required by S t a t e s may be both various and burdensome and may thus make it very d i f f i c u l t f o r opera tors wishing t o f l y over a number of d i f f e r e n t countries. I n the case of p r iva te and non-scheduled operators, who would sometimes have t o make separa te arrangements f o r each f l i g h t , such requirements might make i n t e r n a t i o n a l operat ion impossible owing t o t h e delays involved,

, (I1see a l s o an addendum, page

Document no V

Modi f i ca t im o r Delet ion of Ar t fc le 15

32, The Council i s not a b l e t o make any proposal t h a t would reconci le these conflfctSng i n t e r e s t s , bu t be l ieves t h a t the provisions of Ar t i c le 15 i n t h e d r a f t Conventi on might he modified a long the l i n e s indicated i n the following paragraphs, and t h a t it would then be more acceptable t o those who f ind the present d r a f t i n g unsat is fac tory . Unless some way con be found of modifying A r t i c l e 1 5 s o a s t o give b e t t e r s e c u r i t y t o t h e general public of S t a t e s overflown, some S t a t e s would p r e f e r t h a t the re should be no provisions of t h i s s o r t i n the Convention, leaving S t a t e s t o a c t under t h e guidance of t h e Council r e s o h t f o n . Al ternat ively , it has been suggested t h a t the provisions r e l a t i n g t o requirements concerning the s e c u r i t y of the insurance might be incorporated i n a protocol t o t h e Convention which could then be accepted by some S t a t e s p a r t y t o t h e Convention and not by others ,

3 3 , S t a t e s w i l l a t t a c h considerable importance t o t h i s matter, bu t Council f e e l s t h a t it i s one t h a t must u l t ima te ly be determined a t t h e f i n a l Conference on t h e Convention, and t h a t Council cannot give S t a t e s any use fu l advice on it a t t h e present time. The p r a c t i c a l improvements i n Ar t i c le 15 s e t f o r t h i n the ensuing paragraphs would, however, be re levan t a l s o t o t h e considerat ion of any s i m i l a r pro- v i s f ons incorporated i n a protocol ,

P r a c t f c a l Improvements i n Ar t fc le 15

34 o There a r e c e r t a i n p r a c t i c a l d i f f f c u l t i e s i n the provisions of Ar t i c le 15, The v e r i f i c a t i o n by a S t a t e of t h e exis tence of s a t i s f a c t o r y insurance f o r those a i r c r a f t r eg i s t e red i n i t s t e r r i t o r y t h a t wish t o f l y over fore ign countries, would be a s u b s t a n t i a l adminis t ra t ive burden which many S t a t e s might be unwill ing and some unable t o assume. It is, moreover, doubtful whether it would be possible f o r a S t a t e t o v e r i f y t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e i n s u r e r s of i t s a i r c r a f t i n the many cases where those insure r s a r e not domiciled i n t h a t S t a t e o r where a s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t of t h e r i s k had been refnsured i n other countr ies . I f a S t a t e i s not a b l e o r w i l l i n g t o 3rovide v e r i f i c a t i o n of t h i s s o r t , t h e opera tors of a i r c r a f t r eg i s t e red i n t h a t Stats would der ive no b e n e f i t from the Convention i n t h i s matter,

35. These d i f f i c u l t i e s would be el iminated without v i o l a t i n g t h e fundamental b a s i s on which t h i s sec t ion of the d r a f t Convention rests, i f Ar t i c le 15 were modified t o i n d i c a t e t h a t S t a t e s would accept a c e r t i f i c a t e from t h e insure r of an over-flying a i r c r a f t t h a t t h e a i r c r a f t i s insured according t o t h e Convention, together with a c e r t i f i c a t e from the S t a t e of domicile of t h e insure r a s t o h i s s t a t u s and f i n a n c i a l r e spons ib i l i ty . The quest ion would then remain f o r considerat ion a s t o whether i n s u r e ~ s domiciled i n any S t a t e would be acceptable.

36. The Council i s aware t h a t t h i s proposal may give rise t o i t s own problems, b u t recommends it t o S t a t e s f o r f u r t h e r considera t ion s ince it seems more p r a c t i c a l than t h a t incorporated i n Ar t i c le 1 5 of the d r a f t Convention and might go some way towards s a t i s f y i n g those S t a t e s t h a t f ind t h e Ar t i c le unsa t i s fac to ry on other grounds. The v e r i f i c a t i o n of the i n s u r e r q s s t a t u s and f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by h i s own Government would be both simpler and more widely acceptable than such v e r i f i c a t i o n by t h e Government of the S t a t e of r e g i s t r y of the insured a i r c r a f t , The t o t a l number of a v i a t i o n i n s u r e r s i n any one S t a t e i s small and i n many ins tances t h e i r f inances a r e sub jec t t o governmental r egu la t ion , Even where such regulatf an is n o t i n force, the f i n a n c i a l s tanding of insurance companies i s normally e a s i l y v e r i f i a b l e by t h e appropr ia te governmental author i ty . The r e s u l t s of such v e r i f i c a t i o n could be communicated t o a l l o ther S t a t e s pa r ty t o the Convention and t h e names of t h e approved i n s u r e ~ s could then be communicated by those S t a t e s t o t h e i r o f f i c i a l s a t i n t e r n a t i o n a l a i r p o r t s , Thereafter , it would only be necessary f o r a i r c r a f t t o c a r r y a c e r t i f i c a t e of insurance from t h e i r insurance company together with a copy of t h e governmental c e r t i f i c a t i o n of t h a t company which could no doubt genera l ly be combined i n t o a s i n g l e document.

57, Whatever c e r t i f i c a t e s sre required, the Council i s s t rong ly of the opg-nftv. t h a t t l q shmi!~. h e such & E can be c a r r i e d on t h e a i r c r a f t f o r inspect ion 9n ~ r ' r : ~ 1 , S.kates9 yect:~i~*ements i n t h i s r e spec t should be published so t h a t c p r a , -r.s w2 ll be. able Lo enpsge i n in te rna t iona l a i r navigat ion knowing what r s q u i r s x m t s they nus t s a t f s p y and w i l l no t f e e l obltged t o obta in p r i o r approval of t,kie.fr insurance ar7rangements frorn the S t a t e s t o be overflown. Any arrangements which made it n e c e c x r y t o obta in p r i o r approval of t h i s s o r t would indeed

' have the e f f e c t of n~l:.i.i';,~ing the freedom granted by Ar t i c l e 5 of the Chicago Convention t o p r i v a t e - 3 x c r a f t and non-scheduled commercial a i r c r a f t i n t r a n s i t ,

The Incorpora-t&~ of t,he C e r t i f i c a t e i n the Convention

38. The Mexico d r a f t provtdea t h a t the form of c e r t i f i c a t e should be a t tached t o and form p a r t cf the Convention, The c e r t i f i c a t e is , however, an a d n i n i s t r a t i v e device r a t h e r than an e s s e n t i a l p a r t of t h e Convention, and it. may r s q h i r e amendment from time t o time i n the l i g h t of experience, Council b e l i e v e s t h t f o r t h i s reaeon it w o ~ l d be ~ n w i s e t o incorpora te it i n the Convention i tself , w i t h a l l t h e diff- icul ty which t h a t might e l t a i l i n subsequent amendment, The Council observes tbst chsre are apparent incons i s t eac ies between the c e r t i f i c a t e annexed t o the Mexico Ci ty c r a f t of the Cenvention and the terms of t h e d r a f t Convention i t s e l f , and f u r t h e r t h a t the c e r t i f i c a t e would need Tedrgaftinp: t o conform with any change i n t h e prcposed system of c e r t i f i c a t % o n .

Tha Provis ion of Foreign C n r e n c j t o Pay Compensation under t h e Convention ---.

39 a it i s evident t h a t if an in ju red t h i r d p a r t y i s unable t o recover h i s losaes i n h f s own currency, OF in s currency which i s of some use t o him, t h e insurance provis ions of t h e Con~en t ion w i l ! be v i r t u a l l y worthless t o him, The provision i n A r t i c l e 26 of t h e d r a f t Convention, which provides t h a t S t a t e s w i l l , a s f a r a s possible, f a c i l i t a t e payment i n t h e currency of t h e S t a t e where the damage occurred, appears t o the Council t o l a c k force.

40 e The Council fs , however, aware t h a t the t echn ica l f i n a n c i a l ques t ions which a r e implied i n t h i s A r t i c l e a r e beyond i t s competence, and it makes no proposals a s t o methods by which t h i s provision should be given a d d i t i o n a l force. I t never the less recommends t h a t S t a t e s should reconsider the quest ion whether some grsater a s swance on t h i s point cannot be given t o t h i r d p a r t i e s i n the Convention. B s i n t h e ease of the a e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e i n s u r e r P s f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t h e assurance t h a t t h e necessary fore ign currency t o pay compensation w i l l be made a v a i l - a b l e might no t be d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e , y ~ e r n m e n t of t h e i n s u r e r t o give, A b i l i t y t o pay comy3nsation f n fore ign currency ro;~rht fndeed be regarded a s a necessary accom- paniment< t o a statement of financial r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r an insuran,ce company w r i t i n g insurance fqr i n t e r n a t f o n a l operat ions, This mat ter might be appropr ia t e ly d e a l t with i n Chapter 111.

The Ap~ropr~~l~~~over~.me_nt~a1~Quthority i n Pnsurance Matters

41. I t has been potnted out t h a t i n some S t a t e s t h e a u t h o r i t y responsib le for considerfng iwerrsnce m ~ t ~ t z r s 9f t he type d e a l t with i n Chapter I11 of t h e d r a f t Convention rxiy no t be the same a u t h o r i t y a s is concerned wi th a i r c r a f t r eg i s - t r a t i o n and aviation r e p l a t f o n s . Where, the re fo re , t h e d r a f t r e f e r s t o c e r t i f i c a - t i o n o r v e r i f i c a t i o n by "a Sta te t1 , it would be d e s i r a b l e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t such c e r t i f i c a t i o n o r v e r i f i c a t i o n should be accomplished by the h ighes t p o l i t i c a l sub- d iv i s ion of' a S t a t e having regu la to ry powers i n t h e insurance f i e l d , a s i n the Council Resolut ion on burdensome insurance requirements,

Guarantee by the S ta te of Registry of the Aircraf t a s an Alternative t o Insurance

42, A suggestion was made i n the Legal Committee during its session a t Mexico City t:mt a th i rd form of a l te rna t ive secur i ty should be added t o the two described i n paragraph (3) of Art ic le 15 of the d r a f t Convention. This t h i rd a l t e r - native would consis t of a guarantee given by the S ta te of r eg i s t ry of the a i r c r a f t , I t was pointed out t h a t nei ther of the two a l te rna t ive s ecu r i t i e s i n paragraph (3) of Article 15 would be a prac t ica l poss ib i l i t y i n most cases owing t o the large sum of money t h a t would have t o be deposited, or guaranteed by a bank, With only these a l te rna t ives , a i r l i n e s t h a t desired t o carry the whole or par t of t h e i r own insurance would have no sa t i s fac tory recourse under the provisions of the d r a f t Convention, although t h e i r a b i l i t y t o pay f u l l compensation i n any currency of the world might be established t o the complete sa t i s fac t ion of other States , a s f o r example i n the case of many a i r l i n e s operated with governmental support, It was emphasized t h a t the addit ion of the poss ib i l i t y of a S t a t e guarantee i n paragraph (3 ) of Art ic le 15 would not mean t h a t such a guarantee always be provided, but merely t h a t i f it were provided it would be deemed sa t i s fac tory by the other S ta tes par ty t o the Convention.

43 rn This proposal was considered by Council, but Council f e e l s t ha t it cannot give any useful guidance on it t o Contracting S ta tes ,

ADDENDUM

MEANING AND SCOPE OF THE COUNCIL RESOLUTIOM ON BURDENSOME INSURANCE REQUIRENEI?I!(S!

Appendix IV reproduces the Resolution on Burdensome Insurance Requirements adopted by Council on 6 December 1950, A s some doubt arose during the Eighth Session of the Legal C m i t t e e , held i n January 1951, a t which the Melcfco City d r a f t was prepared, a s t o the meaning and intended scope of t h a t Resolution, the Council, on 7 March 1952, decided t o make c l ea r i t s intent ion with respect t o the following points8

(a ) whether the Resolution was intended t o es tabl ish ~mximum l im i t s of I

Sta te action i n respect of the insurance carr ied by foreign a i r c r a f t entering i t s t e r r i t o ry , or t o e s t ab l i sh only maximum limits of ICAO action; and

(b) whether the Resoluti'on was adopted with sole reference t o the conditions t o be applied t o the operation of scheduled a i r l i n e services, or whether it was intended a l so t o apply t o non-scheduled, miscellaneous and i t i n e r a n t f l i g h t s of every character,

and directed tha t i t s statement be submitted t o S t a t e s invited to the Rome Conference a s pa r t of the documentation f o r the Conference,

The statement tif the Council a s t o the meaning and intended scope of the Resolution i s a s followss

"(1) The Resolution of 6 December 1950 on burdensome insurance requirements was intended t o e s t ab l i sh maximum procedural limits beyond which a Contracting S ta t e should not go i n order t o s a t i s f y i t s e l f t ha t i t s insurance requirements had been f u l f i l l e d , although i t was understood tha t nothing i n the Resolution should prevent a Contracting State frm acceptingp from any or a l l categories of operators, evidence (concerning insurance carr ied) of a l e s s onerous nature,

"(2) The Resolution of 6 December 1950 was a lso intended t o c w e r a l l forms of in te rna t iona l a i r navigation. Aqc insurance requirements should be so applied as not t o const i tute a requirement f o r edvance permission to make f l i g h t s which might otherwise be exempted f r m the necessity f o r such permission under the terms of Art ic le 5 of the Convention,w

Document no V

GENERAL CONCLTEIOEJS FROM MATERIAL PROVIDED BY STATES AND CrrHERS

The c a s t of t h i r d uartv a i r c r a f t insurance i n r e l a t i o n t o the maximum Y

limits covered (see APPENDIX I1 f o r spec i f i c cases).

1, Airc ra f t insurance premiums vary according t o many fac tors , but it would seem t h a t the premiums f o r t h i r d party insurance f o r limits such a s a r e normally covered a t present and under present conditions, might be estimated i n general t o be of the order of one or two do l l a r s per a i r c r a f t per year per $1,000 of limit,

2 0 The representa t ives of t he insure rs have indicated t h a t i f the Mexico City d r a f t Convention were generally adopted, t h e cos t of t h i r d party insurance f o r in te rna t iona l operators would be increaaed owing t o ( a ) the general appl icat ion of unconditional l i a b i l i t y , (b ) t h e r i g h t t o sue on a l l claims i n the country where the damage takes place, ( c ) t h e psychological e f f e c t of specifying maximum l i m i t s higher than most damage assessments i n many parts of t h e world and (d ) t he introduction of t he r i g h t t o claim d i r e c t l y aga ins t t he insurers.

30 I f one were t o assume t h a t t h i r d party insurance under t h e Mexico City d r a f t Convention might cos t '$3 per $1,000 of limit, t h i s would work out (based on the limits i n Ar t i c l e 11) a t about $100 per annum f o r a i r c r a f t of 2,000 kilogrammes o r l e s s ; $300 per annum f o r a i r c r a f t between 2,000 and 6,000 kilogrammes; and about $2,000 per annum f o r t he l a rge a i r c r a f t requir ing t h e maximum cover of 10,000,000 f rancs

Cost of t h i r d mrtv a i r c r a f t insurance i n r e l a t i o n t o cos t of o ~ e r a t i n q g i r c r a f t ( see APPENDIX I1 f o r spec i f i c cases)

40 The material provided by S t a t e s and insure rs ind ica tes t h a t under present conditions t he cos t of t h i r d party a i r c r a f t insurance represents i n general between 1% and 10$ of t h e t o t a l cos t of insur ing the a i r c r a f t , In t h e case of . commercial a i r l i n e s , t he cos t of a l l forms of a i r c r a f t insurance (including Nhul lw insurance) appears t o be generally between 1% and 5$ of t o t a l operating cos t s (see ICAO S t a t i a t i c s Digest No, l8 )o For such operators, therefore , t he cos t of t h i r d party insurance would be l e s s than 1/2 of 1% of t h e i r operating cobts, and generally considerably below t h i s f igure ,

The e f f e c t on t he cos t of t h i r d party a i r c r a f t insurance of i n c r e a s i n u decreasing t he maximum limits of l i a b i l i t y ( see APPENDIX I1 f o r spec i f i c cases)

5 0 It appears t o be generally agreed t h a t i f the maximum l i m i t s of t h i r d party l i a b i l i t y were changed, the cos t of insur ing up t o those l i m i t s would a l s o change, t h e percentage increase o r decrease i n premiums being about hal f the percentage increase o r decrease i n limits.

The extent of commlsory t h i r d party insurance i n nat ional l e g i s l a t i o n

6, Thirteen of t he countr ies replying t o t he question on t h i s point indicated t h a t t h i r d par ty insurance was not compulsory f o r a i r c r a f t operators i n t h e i r countries. Some of these countr ies a re , however, considering introducing l e g i s l a t i o n making such insurance compulsory,

Docwnent no V App. I .

Frequency of accidents g i v i n ~ r i s e t o c l a w f o r damage t o t h i r d pa r t i e s on t he surface

7, An analys is of accidents causing damage t o t h i r d pa r t i e s on the surface made by the Br i t i sh Royal A i r Force, ind ica tes t h a t , f o r accidents involving mi l i t a ry a i r c r a f t , t h i r d party damage accidents of a l l descr ip t ions occur with about the same frequency a s f a t a l accidents, Third party damage on t he surface probably occurs i n about the same proportion of c i v i l a i r c r a f t accidents a s of m i l i t a ry a i r c r a f t accidents, so t h a t i n the absence of o ther data we might assume t h a t the number of t h i r d party damage c i v i l accidents occurring each year w i l l be about t h e same a s t h e number of f a t a l c i v i l accidents,

8 , I n commercial a i r t ranspor t , there a r e , a t the present time, from 50 t o 100 f a t a l accidents a year, so t h a t we might expect about t h a t number of t h i r d par ty damage accidents i n t h i s sect ion of avia t ion, The t o t a l number of t h i r d par ty damage accidents i n a l l types of c i v i l av ia t ion would be very much la rger , On the o ther hand, the number of t h i r d party damage accidents involving fore ign c i v i l a i r c r a f t would be much smaller, Such accidents would be p r ac t i c a l l y confined t o commercial a i r t ranspor t . According t o ICXO records, we might est imate t he t o t a l number of t h i r d par ty damage accidents of a l l kinds involving fore ign c i v i l a i r c r a f t a t between 10 and 20 i n a year.

The nature of the damage done t o t h i r d pa r t i e s on the surface

9 o It appears t h a t damage t o property belonging t o t h i r d pa r t i e s on the surface i s very much more frequent than instances where persons a r e in jured o r k i l l ed . Out of about 2,000 Royal A i r Force accidents , 121, caused some form of damage t o t h i r d pa r t i e s on t he surface but only 6 of these caused death o r in ju ry t o persons. (1 dead; 8 in ju red)

10, A s a general r u l e , t he damage t o t h i r d pa r t i e s on the surface caused by a i r c r a f t accidents i s only t o property and i s r e l a t i v e l y small, consis t ing of damage t o crops, hedges, overhead cables e tc . o r t o objects on a i r f i e l d s , Instances where the damage done might be assessed as high a s t h e l i m i t s i n the Mexico City d r a f t appear t o be extremely rare , perhaps occurring with a frequency of about once per hundred o r two hundred of a l l accidents involving any t h i r d party damage, This might mean t h a t , f o r in te rna t iona l c i v i l av ia t ion , accidents coming within the Mexico Ci ty d r a f t Convention would be expected t o give r i s e t o claims beyond the overa l l limits proposed, perhaps once every t en o r twenty years,

Document no V

Material Available

1, Insufficient s t a t i s t i c a l material i s available t o calculate accurately e i ther the genera$ l e v e l of present third party insurance carried by international operators o r the average p e s e n t cost per tan-mile or aircraft-hour of this insurance, Specific f igures of insurance carried and p r d u m s paid ere, however, available, f o r operators i n Indias Canada and Switzerland9 and by making certain assumptions comsrning the ton-miles or aircraft-hours performed by these operators each year it is possible t o odcu la te the present prermiums paid i n terms of operating costso It i s then possible t o estimate the additional cost of insuring up t o the limits proposed i n the Mexico City d ra f t and up t o double those Umits,

20 The resul t s of these calculations are given on pages 18-20, They provide the following approximate cost c~~nparisons s*

Total operating cost per t o n d l s available

Estimated cost of third party fnsw- ance per ton-mile available, (a) For present

lfmi ts (b) For MexAco

Draft U t s (c) For double

Mexico Draf't Ulits

3 8 From Switzerland we get figtwes f o r the insurance of a Piper Cub which wuld suggest tha t out of about $8,00 per hour total operating cost, th ird p&y insurance f o r present limits would be 46 cents; f o r MaxLco d ra f t limits 45 cents and for double Mesdco d r a f t Umits 53 cents,

4. It will be observed tha t substantial percentage increases i n cost would often be incurred by changing to the limits proposed i n the Mexico City d ra f t and t o double thcwte limits, (In the other hand, the cost of t h i s type of insurance is so small a proportion of t o t a l operating cost tha t these percentage increases would be I

unlikely to represent a serious burden on the operators, I

* These comparisons are based purely on the effect of changing the limits of l i ab i l i ty , It is not possible t o assess the ef fec t of other provisions i n the b x i c o City draft ,

THIRD PARTY INSURANCE COSTS

(&I the fallodng teble the dollar used is the U,S. dollar, and the franc used i s that defined by k t i c l e l l ( 4 ) of the Mexico City draf t Convention.)

Operating cost per tcm mile available (1949)

Cost of Insurance for Lfmits of Liability stated t o be covered

Max$mum liability per a i rc ra f t covered

Total annual premiums for a l l a i rcraf t Ratio of premiums t o insurance cover Batio of premiums t o t o t a l operating costs Estimated premium per ton mile available

AIR INDIA AIRWAYS AIR INDIA INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) (7 Viking-15,400 kg

LTD each (4 ~onst=tions- (11 DC-3-11,800 kg (14 DC-3-11,800 kg - -

47,600 kg each) each) each)

5,711,286 h e 1,428,572 f r ~ . 2,000,000 frs, (Viking) (Rs 2,000,000) (Rs 500,000) (Rs 700,000) (Viking)

1,428,572 (Rs 500,000) f r s . (DC-3) (DC-3)

8 546.52 $751.52 $1,493.52 .03% .065% . O&% .OlG .055% .033% .012# .036# .020#

Cost or Insurance for Proposed Limits of Liabili*

Limits proposed in Mexico City draf t convention ( A r t . 11); relevant figures for double these limits appear in brackets.

Limit relevant t o a i rc ra f t operated 6,700,000 frs. 2,225,000 frs. 2,675,000 frs. (Viking) (13,400,000 f'rs.) (61450,000 frs.1 (5,350,000 frs.)(viking)

2,225,000 f r s . (DC-3) (4,450,000 frs.)(DC-3)

Assessed t o t a l premiums fo r a l l a i rcraf t $600.00 $880,00 $1 .722. 00 ($720.00) (81,265.00) ($2,520*00)

Bstimted preminm per ton mile available .Ow .o@& .023$ ( .OW) ( .OM#) ( .033$)

(mote: The data relat ing t o a i rc ra f t f leet6 and t o operating costs quoted above are based on figures appearing i n nInfonnatione S61ectionn6esn 19 March 1951 ( Ins t i tu t F r an~a i s au Transport Aerien) and in ICAO Digest of S ta t i s t i cs No. 18.)

( I n the following t ab le tho do l l a r used is the U.S. do l l a r , unless otherwise s t a t ed , and the franc used is t h a t defined by Art ic le 11(4) of the Mexico City d r a f t Convention).

T.C. A. (Atlantic Services) (10 DC-4-36,440 kg each)

Operating cos t per ton mile avai lable (1949) $0.62

Cost of Insurance f o r Assumed Limits of L i a b i l i t y

Maximum l i a b i l i t y per a i r c r a f t covered

Total annual premiums f o r a l l a i r c r a f t Ratio of premiums t o inaurance cover Ratio of premiums t o t o t a l operating costa Estimated premium peg ton mile avai lable

9,667,571 f r s . ($750,000 Can. )

$2,026.70 0 029% .018$

0 OIL/!

Cost of Insurance f o r Prowssd Limits of L i a b i l i t y

Limits proposed i n Mexico City d r a f t Convention ( ~ r t . 1 1 ) ; relevant f igures f o r double these l i m i t s appear i n braokets

L i m i t re levant to a i r C r a f t operated 5,305,000 f r s . (10,610,000 f r a , )

Assessed t o t a l premiums f o r a l l a i r c r a f t $1,4300 00 (~2,200e00)

Estimated premium per ton mile avai lable .008/! ( .012b)

(Note: The data r e l a t i n g t o a i r a r a f t f l e e t Bnd t o operating cos t s quoted above a r e based on r igures appearing i n ICAO Digest of S t a t i s t i c e Nos. 18 and 19. )

(SWITZERLAND)

Estimated operating cos t per a i r c r a f t hour operated, based on 150 hours operatian per year

Cost of Insurance f o r L i m i t s of L iab i l i ty s t a t e d t o be covereg

Maximm l i a b f l i t y corered

Total annual premium Natio of premium t o insurance cover Ratio of premium t o t o t a l operating cos ts Estimated premium per a i r c r a f t hour operated

Cost of Insurance f o r Prowaed Limits of L i a b i l i t g

Limits proposed i n Mexico City d r a f t convention^ ( ~ r t . 1 1 ) i relevant f igures f o r double these limits appear i n bracket6

Limit re levant t o Piper Cub

Assessed premium

Estimated premium per a i r c r a f t hour operated

PIPER CUB (~pprox . 550 kg)

$8,00

468,750 f r a o (Personal i n ury)

(150,000 Sw. f r s e j 187,700 f r s . ( Property

dam ge ) (60,000 Sw. f r e .) $68 c 73

0 143% 508%

$00 46

(m: The e ~ t i m a t e s of operating cos ts f o r the Piper Cub quoted above a r e based on data appearing i n "Private Plying - Today and Tomorrow", by W.T. H p e r )

(17)

ac

um

en

t nQ

L

App.

I11

ri

O

d

i-, 0 0

k .Pi

cU m

(10"

.d

qh

A

b

ad

m

ko

noo

m

hD .n 24

r-i

%<

a

h

C* 0 m

8

X

"" .A

no

w

m

2 5

3 M %.

m

CC

0

F:

C9

C

CP

a,

cd* 0

k q;f

k

I N+'o

-t.r-'rn

NQO

A I M S PAID AM) OUTSTA Property Damage Personal We 1 ght

Loaded In ju ry

single- engined f i g h t e r G 59A

None s ta ted Serious damage t o 3 a i r c r a f t on landing

single- engined f igh te r G 59

None s ta ted Sundry damage t o property of t h i r d p r t i e s

Severe in jur- i e s t o 3 per- 8ons

single- engfned

lot s t a ted :assumsd t o be =re thsn 2,000 rg but no t ex- :ceding 6,000 kg)

Extensive damage t o severa l r e s i - dences

Jct l e s s than 750,000 frs. Jot more than % 0 , ~ frs,

single- engfned DH Leopan Moth

claims f o r 21,003

l p O I O kg (2,222 lbs )

Amputation of onlookers s arm by propellor wblle engfne i d l i n g

None s t a t e d 108,570 frs. 188,510 frs. :Meximum Limit af !i;bility of 300,000 f r s . es- xiblishsd by t h e imf t Co~vsc t ion -sduced prcpcr- ~ i o n s t e l y oa ac- :omt of csntri- :ratmy negLf genced

swiss ~ . s , rebuee: on account of ccn- tributary neglk- gence

56,673 Sw. frs pvm-Eq

single- engined Dl Gipsy Mot1

750 kg (1,650 lbs)

3 k i l l e d 31 injured

S l i g h t property dame ge

Glider Mowsey-11:

Eat stat& (assumed t o be not more than

Person injured by vfng ~n landing

None stated 2,376 Sv. rrs plus i n d e m i t y rot

300,000 frs ,. 300,000 fm

Docwent no V Appo I11

Docum

ent no V - App.

I11

WHEREAS i n compliance with Resolution A2-20 of the Second Assembly, the Council of ICAO has, i n consultation wi.th Conkacting S ta tes , reviewed the problem of the burden imposed on in te rna t iona l a i r navigation by the cumulative e f f e c t of the insurance requirements of sane Contracting S.tates; and

WHEREAS it appears t o the Council a f t e r considering the advice of the Legal Committee and the r e p l i e s from Contracting S ta t e s t h a t the problem of insurance a s a whole i s inseparable from such questions a s l imi ta t ion of l i a b i l i t y , l i m i t s of compensation and jur isdict ion, which cons t i tu te an in t eg ra l par t of the severa l i n t e rna t iona l conventions and d r a f t conventions on matters of pr ivate a i r law which the Eegal Committee i s now studying, and t h a t i t i s ne i ther pract icable nor necessary a t t h i s time t o develop a s ingle in te rna t iona l convention t o d e a l with all phases of insurance ; and

W H F N A S , nevertheless, it appears t o the Council t h a t par t of the problem a r i s e s from requirements of some Contracting S ta tes r e s u l e n g i n multiple insurance, t h a t the d i f f i c u l t i e s consequent on these requirements a re diminishing, and t h a t pa r t of the problem could be l a rge ly eliminated by the adoption of the pr inc ip les and pract ice s e t out i n Annex I t o Assdily Sesolution 42-20 with ce r t a in modifications t o meet the objections of a few Contracting States ;

NOW THEREFOIU, THE COUNCIL RESOLVES:

(1) I f the l a w s of a Contracting S ta te require persons engaged i n in te rna t iona l operation of a i r c r a f t i n t o or over the t e r r i t o r y of t h a t S t a t e t o maintain insurance against r i s k s a r i s ing out of the conduct of such operations, those requirements should be deemed t o be s a t i s f i e d i f the operator has effected insurance to the extent required by the State , with a f i nanc ia l ly responsible insurer domiciled i n any Contractting S t a t e and en t i t l ed t o insure such r i sks , and able t o pay indemnities i n the nat ional currency of the S t a t e requir ing such insurance,

(2) Nb Contracting S ta t e should require the submis s ion of more than the following evidence t h a t i t s requirements a s t o such insurance have been sa t i s f ied :

( a ) A c e r t i f i c a t e from the insurer t h a t the insurance has been effected f o r a s ta ted period and t h a t the S t a t e w i l l be not i f ied p r io r t o any cancel la t ion of the insurance;

(b) I n the event of any seasonable doubt on the p a r t of the State, evidence Pram the in su re r a s t o h i s f i nanc ia l respons ib i l i ty and a s t o h i s a b i l i t y t o pay indemnities i n the na t iona l currency of tho State ; and

( c ) A c e r t i f i c a t e issued by the appropriate governmental authori ty exercis ing regulatory powers i n insurance mat ters i n the S ta te i n which the insurer i s domiciled (or where the S t a t e i t s e l f has no regulatory powers i n insurance matters, the highest p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n thereof having such powers) t h a t he i s en t i t l ed t o e f f e c t such insurance,

( 3 ) A s used i n t h i s Resolution, the word "insurern includes a group of insurers , and where a group i s involved the domicile of the insurer s h a l l be deemed t o be tho head underwriting o f f i ce of the group,

D O C U M E N T @VI;

R E P O R T S

SUWWi!"lT TO THE CONFEmNCE

BY COMMITTEES

Document no V I

CClMHITTEE ON ARTICU 4 (18 September 1952) (1)

1, The Committee, established by the Conference on 11 September (afternoon)!, was composed of:

Mro A0 Garnault (France ) M r o A. Ambrosini ( I t a w M r o Wo A. Steenstra-Toussaint (Netherlands) Elr, Ro 0. Uilberforce (United ~fngdsm) MPO EoT, NwnePey (United Sta tes )

The CoIlrmfttee held four meetings on 12, 15, 16 and 18 September 195Z0 Mro A, Garnault (France) was elected Chairmano

2, "fhe C o m m i t t e e considered various hypotheses i n which the l i a b i l i t y of the person en t i t l ed t o the navigational control of the a i r c r a f t might a r i s e under the terma of Article 4(2)of the present d r a f t o The Committee examined the following caeee, among others;

a) the case i n which the lessee makes use of the a i r c r a f t beyond the period provided under h i s agreement of lease;

b) the case i n whioh the lessee makes use of the a i r c r a f t outside the conditions provided i n the agreement of lease;

c ) the case of servants o r agents making use of the a i r c r a f t without however act ing "while performing functions f o r which they were employedn;

d ) the case of the th i e fo

3 0 After discnssfng the respective l i a b i l i t y of the two persons concerned, namely :

(i) the person mkfng use of the a i r c r a f t without the consent ~f the person en t i t l ed t o the navigational control and

( i f ) the person en t i t l ed t o the navigational control,

the Committee decided t o await a policy decision from the Conference on the subject of Article 12(2) concerning unlawful use before making f i n a l recommendations t o the Conferenceo

40 * The Conference havfng decided on 16 September 1952 t o petain the present wording i n Artfcle 12(2), the Committee reconsidered Article I$ i n the l i g h t of t h i a decision and a majority of the Committee reached the following conclusions:

a) the wording i n Art ic le 4 should be the same as that i n l l r t ic le 12(2) and the provision should therefore read as followsx

Where a person vronafulls takes and makes use of an a i r c r a f t as ape~ator without the consent of the person en t i t l ed t o i ts navigational control, the l a t t e r sha-ll be l i a b l e fo r damage eawed on the surface unless he proves tha t he has taken appropr ia te measures t o prevent such Use o r tha t it was impossible f o r hPm t o do so, I n default of such proof he sha l l be l i a b l e jo in t ly and severally wlth the unlawful user, each of them being bound i n eccordance with the provisions of this Conventionno

(1) This Report was considered by the Conference on 13 September (morning), - See Volo I, pages l'71-1760

Pocuraent no VI A. Rep, A r t , 4

b) Thua the l i a b i l i t y of the person en t i t l ed t o the navigational control would only occur i n the case where unlawful use of the a i r c r a f t was made i n the circumstances defined i n paragraph (2) of Article 12, In t h i s connection the Committee considered t h a t the proposed t ex t covered c lear ly the case when a person, t o whom the a i r e r a f t was not i n i t i a l l y delivered bv the Person en t i t l ed t o i t q navfaational control, uses it without the consent of such persono

T h i s interpretat ion excludes from the scope of Art ic le 4 and a l so from the application of Article 12(2) the conversion of an a i r c r a f t by a lessee, a borrower, a l i e n holder, e tc , , since the a i r c r a f t was i n i t i a l l y delivered t o such persons by the person en t i t l ed t o the naa;fgational controlo

c ) On the other hand, a majority of the Committee considered that , by v i r tue of the interpretat ion which i t places upon the word "takesn, the case of servants and agents making use of the a i r c r a f t beyond the l imi t s of t h e i r functions and not while performing functions f o r which they were employed, came within the scope of the t e x t recommended and tha t t h e i r principal f a l i a b l e i n such a cam, subject t o the defence provided f0.p him by the text, If, however, a doubt remains i n this respect, a supplementary provision would be necessary t o deal specif ical ly with t h i s s i tua t iono I n t h a t event, such a provision might be drafted a s follows:

m e r e (a) a person t o whom the a i r c r a f t was not or iginal ly delivered by the person en t i t l ed t o its navigational control o r (b) a servant o r agent act ing while not performing functions fo r which he was employed wrongfully takes an airor&% and makes use of it without the consent of the person en t i t l ed t o i t s navigational c o n t ~ o l , the l a t t e r sha l l be l i a b l e e t c o o o n

The C o w t t e e held six meetings and a t i t s f i r a t rnec.bing eE.eeted I*, Elwell a s Ghafmn,

2 , During the del iberat ions of the CormnSttae, It b e e a ~ . ~ apparent t ha t consideration must bo given not only t o t he substancs 0% Art ic le 7 but a l so of paragraph (2) of Ar t ic le 13, Art ic le 1 and Ar t i c l e 9 , The Committee having concluded i t s del iberat ions subrafts i t s conclusians aa follows:

That there should be included within the Convention provisions t o cover the easa where two o r more a i r c r a f t d i r ec t ly cause the same damage on the surface, The question was discussed as t o whether by elWfnatiorz of Art ic le 7 fj~om the Con- vention t h i s problem could be solved by enien&nen% t o Article 1. The r m j o ~ i t y a r e of t he opinion t h a t it is advisable t o r e t a in Article 7 with er rsvfssd t ex t in order t o avoid amendment of other Art ic les of the Convontfon beside Art ic le Po

(b) The next quest%on presented was whether the person damaged on the surface should have the r i g h t t o hold l i ab l e , jointly and several.ly all of the operators of the a i r c r a f t d i r e c t l y causing the same damage an the surfaea, It uns agreed tha t the victim should have aueh r i g h t of act ion againak the operators of the a i rcraf t both jo in t ly and severea~ly, Thitr gives er bs~re f i t t o the viotfin i n t h a t ha i s perrnrtted t o e l e c t whether he wished t o sue each operator individually o r t o join and sue a l l of tha operatops of t he wirer&% d i r ec t ly causing the same dmags on the surfacso

(4 Arf stag out uf thf s, a pmblsm was p0oson$ed durJng the deliberntions of the Committee a s t o which the bonimittee could not reach ogreernl~ent~ It was generally agreed t h a t whe~e, as might be tho caaa whzm G'nt: f a l l ou a i r c r a f t frntc~mingled after a co l l i s ion and it could not be ostab1i;;ihed by which a%rma.f t any pra2tfcular dimage wau caused, the v fc t i~n ehould ba able t o sue both or a11 of the oparaLors concarrld0 But the questiox~ arose wheth*r i n this o r o ther e w e s of eol2lisior1 an operator should be permitted t o prove, if he could, t h a t h i s a i r c r a f t d id not cause any p a r t of the damage concernedo One view wau t h a t he should not and that i n a11 casaa of dmuge following a co l l i s ion , there should ba jo in t l i n b i l i t g , This v i e d is reflcctcil i n the t ex t of Proposisl A, pezragziph ( l I o The other view, feu, t h a t t h i s f i p p a ~ t ~ i l i t y aholrld be cap- forrad u p m an operator is re f lec ted i n ,tho t:~xt GI: Yy~'.ol;ond B, pt~razauaph The Comdttba being unable t o agroe, preosnts t h i s n!:, t tu~ for tha dctei~rizination of the Confarenceo

(1) This Raport has been considered by the Cur9eronct.1 on 24. Scp.t,mbcr (afternoola), - See Volo I, pages 265-,2"&*8,

no V I B, Repo A r t , 7

Qd) The question of the extent of l imi ts against which a victim would have the r igh t t o proceed was then determined, It was agreed t h a t the victim should have the r igh t t o obtain his provable damage from a l l of the operators of the a i r c r a f t causing the same d i r ec t damage on the surface t o the extent of each of t h e i r limits a s provided i n Article 11 or i n Article 120 In other words, the victim would be en t i t l ed t o receive compensation f o r his provable damage out of the aggregate sum represented by the indfvidual limits of each of the operators concerned as prodded for under Article 11 o r under Article U0 This i s the principle already adopted i n Article 7 and Article 13(2) of the d r a f t Convention, The Committee recommends retention of the principle of Article 13(2), but suggests tha t the draf t ing Committee should correct the repet i t ion which now exis t s between the proposed provisions of Article 7 which a re submitted with t h i s report, and Article 13(2),

(4 The most complex problem considered was tha t occasioned by the case where an a i r c r a f t col l iding or manoeuvering i n euch a manner as t o cause other a i r c r a f t t o f a l l and which may be the indfrect cause of the same d i r ec t damage on the surface but which permits such a i r c r a f t t o continue i ts f l igh t , Your Committee concluded tha t since the Conference has already determined t h a t t h i s Convention should be concerned solely with the dfrect and not indi rec t damage it would be unwiee t o include such cases involving i n d i ~ e c t cauae within this Conventiono Consequently, the Committee determined that such a case should beexcluded from the Convention but t h a t the victim should nevertheless re ta in whatever r ight of act ion is available t o him i n the national courts against such operators, The vfew of the Committee i s reflected i n paragraph (2) of the tex ts submitted, The Commfttee noted t h a t such an action might be held t o be excluded by Article 9 i n i t s present form, I f the vfew of the Conference is t h a t it should be permftted, it i s recommended tha t the draf t ing Committee modif'f Article 9 t o ensure t h a t this r ight i s not outlawed. The necessary r e su l t might be achievad by prefscing Article 9 with the words "subject to the provisions of Apticle 7(2)no

(f 1 I n comeation with the determination made i n paragraph (e) above, a proposal was made that where the victim has the r ight of d i r ec t action outside of the provisions of the Convention against the operator of the a i r c r a f t which indirect ly caused the damage on the surface and continued i t s f l igh t , although the operatop would not be l i a b l e under the absolute ru le of the Convention, any provable damage should be subject t o the limits of the Convention, The majority of the Committee was unable a t t h i s stage t o accept t h i s proposal but agreed tha t it should be presented t o the Conference for considerationo

3 o These determinations a re presented t o the Conference together with the above-mentioned d ra f t provisions embodying such principles i n order t o a id the members of the Conference i n considering concretely these proposals ao t h a t i n the event the Conference approves the principles such draf t s contain, they may a id the draf t ing Commfttee i n i t s worko (Note t ex t i n brackets a t the end of Proposal B),

PBOPOSaL A 05' ARTICLE 7

(1) When two o r more a i r c r a f t have collided or interfered with each other i n f l i gh t , the operators of the a i r c r a f t concerned sha l l be joint ly and severally l i a b l e fo r the damage caused on the surface i n accordance with the provisions of Article lo However, i n no case sha l l the operator of any a i r c r a f t be l i a b l e i n excess of the limit applicable t o his a i r c r a f t i n accordance with Art ic le 11 unless his l i a b i l i t y is unlimited i n accordance with Article 12,

Document no VI Bo Rep, A r t , 7

(2) Where an aircraft; coll ides o r interfered with the f l i g h t of another a i r c ra f t , the l i a b i l i t y of the operator of the former a i r c r a f t i n respect of damage caused by any such other a i r c r a f t on the surface or by persons o r objects fal&ing therefrom is not governed by the provisions of this Convention, LHowever, i n no case sha l l the operator of any a i r c r a f t be l i ab le i n excess of the l i m i t applicable t o h i s a i r c r a f t i n accordance with Ar t ic l 1 unless his l i a b i l i t y is unlimited i n accordance with Article ldT1jo

PROPOSAL B OF ARTICLE 7

(1) Where a person suffers damage on the surface which i s caused, i n the manner provided i n Article 1, by two o r more a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t or by persons o r objects f a l l i n g therefporn, or i f such damage i s caused i n

. circumstances in which it cannot be proved as provided i n Article 1 which of several a i r c r a f t caused such damage o r from what a i r c r a f t the persons or objects f e l l which caused such h g e , the operators of the a i r c r a f t sha l l be joint ly and severally l i ab le , However, in no case sha l l the operator of any a i r c r a f t be l i a b l e $.n excess of the l i m i t applicable t o h i s a i r c r a f t i n accordance with Article 11 unless his l i a b i l i t y is unlimited i n accordance with Art ic le 12,

(2) Where an a i r c r a f t col l ides o r interfered with the f l i g h t of any other . a i ro ra f t , the l i a b i l i t y of the operator of the. former a i r c r a f t i n respect of damage caused by any of such other a i r c r a f t on the surface or by persons or objects f a l l i ng therefrom is not governed by the provisions of t h i s Convention, L~owever, i n no case sha l l the o p e ~ a t o r of any a i r c r a f t be l i a b l e i n excess of the limit applicable t o h i s a i r c r a f t i n accordance with Ar t ic l 1 unless h i s l i a b i l i t y i s unlimited i n accordance with Article 1231j

(1) The sentence included i n bpackets i s submitted f o r consideration by the Conference i n connection with the proposal s e t fo r th i n paragraph ( f ) of the Report, I f the Conference adopts the principle proposed i n para- graF"h @) it should be included i n the t ex t of paragraph (2) I f not, it should be deleted,

Document no V I

COMMJTITZ OH ARTICLE 11 (24 September 1952)(1

lo The Committee, established by the Conference on 18 September (afternoon), was composed of:

Wo Jus t ice Alten (Horny Mro J o H o Beekhuie (Netherlands ) M r o W o V o J o Evans ( U n i t ed KSngdom )

'PAe Committee held four meetings on lqth, 20th, 22nd and 23rd September, t o consfder the proposals made i n the Plenary Meeting of the Conference i n connection w i t h A r t i c l e 11(4) concerning the date at which the amounts fixed by Art ic le ll(11) and (2) should be converted i n t o national currencieao

&, J w t f ~ e Alten was elected Chairman of the Co&tbeo

A t ftre fourth meeting, the Commfttee approved the present Report,

20 There a re four stages a t which the problem of comemion from Poinear4 francs in to national currencies will arises

(a) when leg is la t ion is passed to implement the Convention; (b) when security is furniehed o r insurance effected i n accordance

w i t h the provisions of Chapter 111; (e) i n the event of a settlement being agreed out of court by

the parties; and (d) i n judicial proceedingse

3 o The Committee agreed that no serfous problem a r i s e s i n connection with stages (b) (insurance or securi ty) and ( c ) (settlement),

(b) Insurance and other securi t ieeo

In the case of insurance, the Committee understands that policies can be writtern i n such a way as t o oover subsequent fluctuations of the l imi t s of l i a b i l i t y i n terms of national currencieso I n t h e case of pecuri t ies other than insuranoe, a conversion of the limits prescribed in Article 11 in to national currency might have t o be made f o r the purpose of applying Art ic le 17(2): the Colnmnfttee aonsfdered tha t , f o r this purpose, the converraion must be made a t the time when the securi ty i s furnished, and t h a t the securi ty must thereaf ter be kept adjusted t o take account of fluctuations i n the gold value of national currencies; t he Committee was of the opinion t h a t e f fec t would be given t o this intent ion under the presenb language of Art ic le 17(2),

When the claim s r e s e t t l e d out of oourt the matter w i l l be covered a s pmrt of the agreement between the part ies , and there is no necessity t o lay down any ru le in the Conventiono

(1) This Report was considered by the Conference on 26 September (afternoon) . - See vole I, pages 345-28.

ocunant no Vf %. Rep. A r t . 11(&)

40 The above considerations, therefore, narrow down the problem t o two cases, namely: ( a ) (legislation), and (d) ( judic ia l proceedings) .

(a ) Conversion i n re la t ion t o l e ~ i s l a t i o n ~

Under cer ta in national currency systems conversion can be made i n the actual t e x t of the len is la t ion enacted t o im~lement the Convention, This, however, would only be permissible f o r those Sta tes which have a national gold currency and, even i n the case of such States, i f they also have a paper currency, it i s only the conversion i n t o the national gold currency which may be made i n the leg is la t ion i t s e l f . Otherwise, the limits prescribed i n paragraphs (1) and (2) of Art ic le 11 would be contra- vened by currency fluctuations occurring a f t e r the date of legislation. T h a t t h i s is the intent ion of Art ic le 11 is c lear i n the t ex t though the second sentence of paragraph (4) read i n i so la t ion might be understood i n the contrary senae,

(d ) Conversion i n re la t ion t o judicial ~roceedinas . The Cammittee recommends reject ion of the I t a l i a n proposal t h a t

conversion should be made a t the time of payment: it i s usual f o r national courts to give t h e i r judgments f o r a def in i te amount i n the national currency and it would lead t o d i f f i c u l t i e s t o oblige the courts t o give t h e i r judgments i n terms of gold. Moreover, i f conversion were l e f t u n t i l the date of payment, the judgment debtor might be tempted t o delay p a p e n t and so take advantage of fluctuations i n the gold value of the national currency,

Three poss ib i l i t ies remain, in the view of the members of the Committee, Conversion may be made:

(i) a s of the date when the incident occurs;

( i i ) a8 of the date when judgment is rendered, or on the da te of the reduction of claims i n the case of application of the l a t t e r par t of Art ic le 20(8);

( i i i ) a t any date selected by the Court,

Solution ( i ) i s undesirable: it would prejudice the r igh t s of the claimrants because a devaluartion of the national currency a f t e r the incident but before the judgment would r e su l t i n the claimant receiving l e s s i n terms of the national currency than the limit prescribed by the Convention; moreover, the perBon l i a b l e might be tempted t o delay payment i n order t o take advantage of this . Although a similar objection applies t o solution ( i i ) , the Cormnittee was of the opinion t h a t the consequences t o the claimant were l ike ly t o be l e s s serious i f this solution were chosen. Under solution ( i i i ) the matter would be l e f t t o the discret ion of the Court, which would be i n a posit ion t o take into consideration a l l relevant circwnstancsrs of the caset on the other hand, solution (c) would expose the part ies t o a rb i t ra ry decisions with respect t o the effect ive date and would f a i l t o unify the l a w o

On the whole the Committee recommende t h a t the Conference should adopt solution ( i i ) . If the Conference agrees with t h i s recornendation, e f f ec t could be given t o it by adding t o paragraph (4) of Art ic le 11 a sentence on the following l ines :

nConversion of the sums i n t o national currenciee other than gold shall, i n oaee of judicial proceedings, be made according t o the gold value of such currencies a t the date of the al lo- cation under Art ic le I4 or, i f there i s no such allocation, a t the date of the judgmenton

Document no VZ

C O M m OH ARTICLE 15 (22 September l952)(1)

1, This Committee was established by the Conference on 18 September (afternoon) t o analyse the problgans a r i s ing under Article 15 of the Mexico City d ra f t i n the l i g h t of proposals t o amend t h a t Article and t o present t o the Conference a recommended procedure f o r voting on the main questions of principle,

The Committee was composed of:

MP, HOWo Poulton ( Australi a ) Mro GoWo Nadeau (Canada ) Mr0 Ro Gravelin (France ) Mr, A, Ambroeinf ( I t a l y ) Mro OoHo Carruthers (United Ungdom) MPo EoTo N m e l e y (Unfted Sta tes )

In addition, valuable assistance was rendered by Mr, J .Co Cooper (UTA) and Mro A, Goodfellow ( I U A I )

2 , The Cormaittee met on 18, 19 and 20 September 1952, Mr, Poulton w a s elected Chairmano

3 0 The Committee considered a number of a l te rna t ive procedures and recognizes that some at l e a s t of these al ternat ives would provide a sui table method of votingo However, a f t e r careful examination, it was unanfmoualy agreed tha t the procedure s e t out hereunder is the most sui table method of pmsenting the various proposals fop decision of the Conference, It is accordingly recommended t h a t t h i s procedure be adoptedo

40 The Conference should vote successively on the following questions:

(1) Comwlsorv Insurance o r other securitgg

Should the Conventfon establ ish a system 04 compulsory insurance or other security as provided i n Article 12(1) of the Rome Convention of 1933? ( I t a l i a n proposal)

(2) Extent and limits of Insurance which mas be reauired

Does the Conference accept the United Kingdom proposal t ha t the insurance sha l l be deemed sat isfactorg i f it covers the l i a b i l i t y t o pay compensation of each person l i a b l e a s operator provided tha t i n cases under Art ic le 3 and Art ic le 4(2) of the Mexfco City draf t , it shall be suf f ic ien t i f It coveps a t l e a s t one of the persons joint ly and severally l i a b l e under those Articles 7 ( United Kingdom proposal )

6kTE: I n the absence of any contra- proposal the Consafttee has assumed that the insurance o r other mcur i ty sha l l be deemed sat isfactory if it covers l i a b i l i t y only up t o the l imi ts applicable under Article 11 a s provided i n Art ic le 15(1) of the Mexico City dmftJ

(1) 'ibis Report was considered by the Conference on 25 September (morning, afternoon and night) and on 26 September, - See Vol I, pages 279-332.

Document no V I Do Rep, A r t , 15

(a ) Should the Convention recognize a system under whicb Sta te ce r t i f i ca t ion as t o the f inancial responsibil i ty of the insurer i s not required but the S ta te overflown re ta ins the r ight t o sa t i s fy i t s e l f as t o such f inancial responsibil i ty? (United States proposal )

L~OTE: Under this proposal it is contemplated t h a t the S ta te overflown may not require more than tha t the insurance o r the securi ty should cover l f ab i l i t y t o pay compensation under the Convention (as decided under question 2 above) and be written by an insurer o r group of insurers authorized or permitted i n the S ta te of Registry of the Aircraft o r S ta te of Domicile of the Insurer (as decided by the conference) provided t h a t i f the S ta te overflown has reasonable grounds f o r doubting the ffnancial responsibil i ty of the insurer, i t may require sat isfactory evidence tha t such insurer or group of insurers i s f inancial ly responsibleJ

(b) I f question 3(a) is answered negatively, should a system be established which requires the S ta t e overflown t o accept a c e r t i f i c a t e verifying the f inancial responsibil i ty of the insurer issued by:

(1) The Sta te of Registry of the Aircraft? (Frgnch proposal).

(if) %he Sta te of Domicf l e o r principal place of business of the Insurer? (United Kingdom proposal),

&OTE: The voting on t h i s question sha l l not prejudice the questions s e t for th i n (c) and (d) hereunderd

(e ) Should the Convention require t h a t i n order t o be deemed sat isfactory the insurance sha l l be effected by an insurer, o r group of insurers, recognized by the International Civi l Aviation Organization, and authorized or permitted under the laws of the S ta te where the a i r c r a f t i s registered t o e f fec t such insurance, end whose f inancial responsibil i ty has been verif ied by t h a t S ta te? (French proposal)

(d) Notwithstanding that a c e r t i f i c a t e has been issued by the S ta te of Registry o r S ta te of Domicile (as decided under question (b)), i f the S ta te overflown has any reasonable doubt as t o the f inancial responsibil i ty of the insurer, can it r e uf re additional evidence a s t o the financial respon- sf b i l f t y of the i nsurer? ? Canadi an proposal ) .

( 4 ) Posi t i on of Insurer i n non-contracti ng States

Should the Convention provide t h a t the S ta te overflown may refuse t o accept insurance effected by an insurer whose domicile or princPpal place of business is i n a non-contracting State? (Australian, Spanish, Danish proposals),

&UTE: Under t h i s proposal the S ta te overflown would have the r igh t t o refuse insurance i f it saw f i t even i f the insurer met a l l the requirements determined under 3 aboveJ

(5) Cert i f f cate of Insurance

(a ) Should a form of insurance ce r t i f i ca t e be annexed t o the Convention? (Brazilian and United Kingdom proposals ),

(b) If yes t o (a )

( i ) Should the form be mandatory o r recommended?

( i f ) If a recommended form is preferred, should the Convention provide t h a t it may be amended by the Council of ICAO from time t o time?

Document no VI D, Rep Art, 15

(c ) If no t o ( a )

(f ) Should the Convention nevertheless contain a provision t h a t the Council of ICAO should adopt a recommended form of c e r t i f i c a t e from time t o time?

(6) Alternative Form of Securitx

( a ) Should any of the bank guarantee be deleted? (Brazilian and French proposals ) . (b) Should the essh deposit be deleted? (Brazilian and French proposals ) . ( c ) Should the guarantee of the State of Registry be accepted as an ad& t ional f o m of security? ( ~ u s t r a l i a n , Canadf an and French proposals ) . (d) If t o (e) should the Convention contain a provision tha t any S ta t e which issues a S ta te guapantee undertakes a s a Convention obligation t h a t it will waive any r igh t t o sovereign immunity i n respect of any proceedings t o enforce the guarantee? (Australf an proposal ).

COMMITTEE ON ARBITRATICN (29 September 1952 ) (1

1 . The Comm!lttee, established by the Conference on 22 September (morning) to consider the question of arbitration, was composed of:

MI-0 b l s Miss Cololaaer k o Bhatti W. Van der Meul

(Brazil) (United Statea ) 1 ( India )

.en (Netherlands )

The ColaPlittee held four meetings.

Mr. Reirsl was elected Chairman at the first meeting.

The Committee took as a basis for its discussion the observations made in plenary meeting and the vote taken on principleso

2, !be Conference having decided in principle that it m e desirable to provide in the Convention that parties may have access to arbitration for the settlement of' c l h s arising under the Convention, the Cormnittee considered that it was preferable to incorporate the corresponding provisions in a separate article, since the assumptiow and situations contemplated in Article 20 would not always be present in an arbitration procedure.

3. The other question for consideration was whether arbitration in non-contracting States should be included. The Committee answered this question in the negative, sinae there is no reason for extending the application of this article in this manner, and since such a solution would simply result in complicating, in most cases, the execution of arbitration awsrds in Contracting States.

4 e The Committee also considered that the inclusion in the convertion of general provieions with binding force regarding arbitration proceedings and cone- titution would give rise to serious problems on account of differences existing in the laws of varioura countries in this respect. .Consequently, it is recommended that arbitration shall always be governed by the law of the Contracting State on wbose territo~y the arbitration proceedings are carried out, and, $0 far as the execution of arbitration awards-is concerned, by the law of the courts where execution is requested.

5. The Oommittee agreed that an explicit provision should be made under which, when execution has been denied in one Contracting State, the%clafmant may bring an action for compensation before the courts of that same State.,

6 , The dmft submitted to the Conference at &nex "4" has been prepared by the Committee on the basis of the vote taken in Conferencel A minority recommendation on this problem appears at Annex "B n o

(1) This Report was considered by the Conference on 30 September (afternoon). - See Vole 1, pages 403-4l&

Document no VI E. Rep, Arbftration

j 1) Upon agreement between a l l persons who have made claims f o r compensation within the period contemplated by Art ic le 19 and the persons from whom payment of compensation may be claimed under the provisions of t h i s Convention, such claims may be submitted t o an arb i t ra t ion i n any Contracting Sta te i n accordance with the agreement of such par t ies and the laws of the Contracting Sta te where such a rb i t r a t ion f s t o take place,

(2 ) The Contracting Sta tes undertake t o f a c i l i t a t e the procedural a c t s which a re t o take place on t h e i r te r r i tory , i n accordance with the provisions which, pursuant t o t h e i r legis lat ion, regulate the procedure of arbitpation.

(3) Arbitral awards rendered pursuant t o t h i s a r t i c l e s h a l l be enforceable i n other Contracting Sta tes i n accordance with the national laws of such States.

( 4 ) If execution of an a r b i t r a l award has been refused i n any Contracting Sta te i n which application fo r execution has been made under paragraph (3) of t h i s a r t i c l e , the claimant may bring, i n the courts of t h a t State , an action fo r compensat ion not exceeding the amount awarded by arb i t ra t iono The r igh t t o bring such an act ion shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Art ic le 21, be subject t o period of l imitat ion of one year from the date on which execution of the a r b i t r a l award was refused*

It i s recommended tha t the Conference reconsider the question of arbi- t r a t ion and indicate whether it would agree tha t the Convention should contain the principle tha t i n any case a rb i t ra t ion may take place i n accordance with the national laws of the s t a t e where such arb i t ra t ion i s sought, To accomplish such a purpose the followfng t ex t is submitted f o r the consideration of the Conference:

Nothing i n this Convention s h a l l prejudice the r i g h t of the par t ies t o submit any c l a h t o a rb i t ra t ion i n any contracting s t a t e i n accordance with national laws and internat ional agreements governing a r b i t r a l procedures i n such s tate .

C~~ ON FINAL PR I IOMS "P;S (29 September 1952)

1, The O d t t e e , establfshed by the Confemnce on 23 September (afternoon), was composed of r

Mr. B o E e LupeFf (Argentina) H s a F. ClaudcLafontaine ( ~ r a n c e ) MrO MoA. Fernandea (Portugal) Mro WoVoJ. Evans (United Kingdom) Miss Hob. Colclaser (United Sta tes )

The Committee met on 27th and 28th September, 1952.

M r o Evans ( W w d Kingdom) was elected Chairman.

Reviaion of Articles 30-36 of Bx lco C i t y Text

2 o The Committee recomeads to the C nfersnce the adoption of the d ra f t 29 f i n a l provisions i n the Annex t o this bpo.rt(

30 I n presenting these d ra f t f i n a l provisions, the Committee uiahes t o draw the a t ten t ion of the Confereaae t o the following points:

(a The Committee conaidered t h a t signature of o r adherence t o the Convention should be open t o any S ta t e and t h a t it was ~ ~ e c e s s a r y t o impose any r e s t r i c t ions o r conditions i n t h i s respect,

(b) The Conference should decide on the number of r a t i f i ca t ions required t o bring the Convention in to force under paragraph (1) of Art ic le 320 The Committee suggests t h a t the number should be not more than f i f teen , I n favour of a high number, it may be said t h a t it w i l l not be worthwhile f o r States t o take the necqsaary l eg i s l a t ive act ion and t o eskblksh the neceseary administrative machinery f o r giving e f fec t t o the Convention, unless it i a of f a i r l y wide applicrotiono Furthermore, the application of the Convention would be more advantageous if it comes in to force f o r a considerable number of S ta tes a t the same timeo On the other hand, the higher the number of r a t i f i ca t ions required, the longer w i l l be the delay before the Convention comes i n t o fotce and there i s a danger t h a t p i f the delay i s too long, States w i l l lose i n t e r e s t in ~ a t f f i c a t i o n ~

(0 ) ' In conneotion with Art ic le 3-5, the United Sta tes Delegation comented t h a t a i r c r a f t regfstered i n a t e r r i t o r y of a Contracting Sta te t o which the Con- vention i s not aml icable , should not receive the benefit of the Convention i n other Contracting States. The Committee accepted the va l id i ty of this comment and recommends t h a t Art ic le 22 should be amended so a s t o make the Conventi~n apply only t o a i r o r a f t registered i n "the t e r r i t o r y of another Contracting Statea ( t h i s t e r r f t o r y being defined i n Art ic le 27 as including only t e r r i t o r y t o which the Convention extends under Art ic le 35)e

3 A number of provisions, which were dispersed i n several Art ic les of the Mexico City text, requiring ICAO t o give notice t o S ta tes of cer ta in matters, have been replaced by a new Art icle 37.

(1) This Report was considered by the Conference on 1st October (morning) and 3 October (night), - See Vole I, pages 415-422 and 507-512.

(2) These provisions which were adopted by the Conference a r e not reproduced here and appear i n the t e x t a s signed0 - See pages 265-267 of t h i s volume,

(15)

Document no VI Fo R&pd Flnal Clauses

Reservations

40 The United Nations in its coments(l) has recommended that an article on reservations should be included in the Convention, The Committee endorses this recommendation and proposes that the views of the Conference should be ascertained by means of the following questions:

(f) Should the Convention include an article on reservations?

(ii) Should reservations be permitted?

(iii) If the answer to (ii) is yee, should there be any restrictions on the makfng of reservations? .

(fv) If the answer to (iii) is yes,

(a) should the making of reservations be restricted to one or more reservations the tems of which would be stated specifically in the Convention? If the Conference answers this question in the affirmative, it should decide upon the tems of the reservations which may be madeo

(b) if the answer to (a) is no, should the making of reservations be restricted to certain articles of the Convention? If the Conference decides this question in the affirmative, it should specify the articles in respect of which reservations may be madeo

(c) if the answer to (a) is no, should the making of reservations be subject to acceptance by other States?

(d) if the answer to (c) is yes, does the Conference prefer Clause V or Clause VI of the Model Reservations Clausea annexed to the comments of United Nations?

PART 111

Miecellaneous

50 The Unfted Nations in its coments also suggested that the Conference should conafder whether to include in the Convention provisions on (1) the arbitration of disputes between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention; (2) the duration of the Convention; and (3) the amendment or revision of the Conventiono The Committee makes the following recornendations to the Conference on these three matters:

(1 ) It is unnecessary to include a disputes clause in a Convention of this kind for the unification of private lawo

( 2 ) No provision concerning the duration of the Convention is neoesaary in addition to the provisions already included on denunciation*

. (3) Amendments of the Convention should be made by a Protocol drawn up by a diplomatic conference which would be convened on the initiative 09 ICAOo This would be the normal procedure and it is unnecessary to include any provision in the Convention to this effect,

(I) See pages 174-176 of this voPuaea

COMMITTEE OF INSURANCE (30 September 1952) ( 1 )

1, The Committee on Article 15 was e x p d e d on 26 September (afternoon) f o r the purpose of reviewing Chapter I11 of the Draft Convention i n the lfght of the decisions on Artfcles 16, 17 and 18. The Connnittee was requested t o prepare a new draf t of Chapter I11 f o r submission t o the draf t ing Conmnittee and ba repar t back any questions of aubstance which appeared t o be unresolved.

2, The following delegates and observers attended three meetings held on the 27th and 29th September, 1952:

Mr., HOW. Poulton (Australia) (Chairman) Mr, D.S, Sa l (Argentina) Mr . Re Gravelin (France ) Mr. L. Clerc (Switzerland) M r , G.H, Carruthers ( United Kingdom) M r o E.T. Nunneley (United Sta tes ) Mr. J ~ C . Cooper ( IATA ) M r , A, Goodfellow ( ImI

3 . The new d r a f t purports t o follow fa i th fu l ly the decisions of the Conference but it w i l l be appreciated t h a t some of those decisions were i n suff i - c ien t ly general t e r n t o permit differences of in te rpre ta t ion so t h a t on several p i n t s fur ther decisions of the Confepence appear neoessary,

46 In par t icular , the following questions a r i s e ;

(1) The words "group of insurers" have been omitted t o simplify the draf t ing of this Chapter. It i s considered necessary,.however, t o define insurers a s including a "group of insurers", e i the r i n separate provision i n Chapter 111, OF the def ini t ions a r t i c l e (see Art ic le 15(9)),

(2) The Conrmfttee has not revised the form of insurance ce r t i f i ca t e annexed t o the Mexico City d ra f t , It inviters a t ten t ion t o the d r a f t c e r t i f i c a t e s annexed t o the United Kingdom proposal and a lso p i n t s out tha t reconmended forms should be prepared f o r securi ty other than fnsurance unless a decision t o the c o n t ~ a r y i s taken,

( 3 ) It will be necessary for the ~ r a f t i i ~ Committee t o examine the use of the t e r n nprincipal place of business of the insurer@ i n paragraphs (2), (3) and ( 5 ) of Art ic le 15, and the expression ndomicile of the insurern which appears t o be the appropriate expression i n some Sla tes i n order t o acMeve complete equivalence of texts,

( 4 ) It w i l l be noted t h a t i n paragraph (3) of Art ic le 15 a l te rna t ive t ex t s have been includedo The object of this provision, as s t a t ed by its proponents, i s not primarily t o ensure f inancia l r ~ s p o n s i b i l i t y of insurers i n non-contracting States , but ra ther t o ensure t h a t i n appropriate cases the victim w i l l have a d i r ec t r igh t of action against the insuper and that laws e x i s t i n the S ta t e where the insurer i e a u t h o r i ~ e d t o e f f ec t insurance exempting the insurance from seizure by credi tors , and t h a t the insurer can pay i n the victim's currency. Some members consider that this can be achieved by l imit ing the r igh t of denial, contemplated i n Art ic le 15(3), t o the cases of insurance effected by an insurer who is not authorised f o r that m r m s e i n a contracting Sta te , and tha t t h i s wsuld avcrid the very serious danger of r e s t r i c t i n g the insurance market inherent i n the fmnula apprsved by the Committeeo It i s considered t h a t the a l te rna t ive d r a f t is net inconsistent with the in t en t of the Conference" decision and t h a t it oan, therefom, be voted upon wfthout formally reopening the matter*

(I) This Report was considered by the Conference on 1 October (afternoon) and 2 October (afternoon) . - See Vol. I, pages 432-4'700

hcument nQ VI Go Rep, Insurance

(5) The CommSttee considered tha t the Conference should votb on a proposal of the IATA Observer t o add a t the end of Art ic le 15(6) the following words:

"or with ICAO who sha l l furnish a copy thereof t o each Contracting Staten.

( 6 ) The United States member of the Committee considers t h a t the Con- ference agreed tha t i n verifying the f inancial responsibi l i ty of the insurer S ta tes should take in to account the insurerqs a b i l i t y t o pay i n the victim's currencyo This understanding was objected t o by several members of the Committee and it was, therefore, decided t o recommend t h a t the Conference should permit the matter t o be c l a r i f i ed i f the United States so desireso

(7) The expression "appropriate authorityn i n paragraph (5) has been retained and a defini t ion added a t the end of t h i s Article t o give e f f ec t t o the decision of the Confepence t h a t i n Federal S ta tes where regulatory powers over insurance are vested i n the governments of the various component s t a t e s , the c e r t i f i - cate may be issued by the appropriate authority i n the s t a t e where the insurer is authorfxed t o do businesso

(1) The Conference approved the inser t ion of the corresponding language of the Brussels Protocol i n Art ic le 16(1), It i s pointed out t h a t the words 'land without prejudice t o any recourse he may have against the party insured, guaranteed or indemniffedH a m unnecessary since the point appears t o be covered by Ar t ic le 16(5),

( 2 ) It i a recommended tha t the words *with the consent of the or iginal operatop* be inser ted a s indicated i n the d ra f t i n Article 16(2). This paragraph corresponds with Article 12(3) of the Brussels Protocol but account must be taken of the d i f fe rent def ini t ion of operator i n the Rome Convention 1933 and the present d r a f t and the object of Article 3 and a lso Art ic le 4 t o ensure t h a t the insurer w i l l not be required t o cover the l i a b i l i t y of a th fe fo The addition of the words recommended requires a Conference decision*

(3) The adoption of Art ic le 12(3) of the Protocol ra i ses a fur ther problem connected with the new system of cer t i f ica t ion proposed i n Article 150 Tho obligation of the insurer is t o hotif'y the appropriate authority of the S ta te where the insu~ance c e r t i f i c a t e was issued but no machinery i s established t o n o t i 0 the States overflown. The Conference should consider an Argentine proposal t h a t ICAO be not i f ied and inform contracting Sta tes that the policy has been cancelledo The period of seven days ra i ses obvious d i f f i cu l t i e s so f a r a s ensuring effect ive notice t o the States overflown i s concernedo

(4) The Committee points out a discrepancy between Art ic le 1 6 ( l ) ( a ) which r e fe r s t o not i f icat ion t o the S ta te where the a i r c r a f t i s registered and the similar language of paragraph (2) which requires t h a t the insurer not i f ies the proper authority of the S ta te where the insurance ce r t i f i ca t e was issued. The Committee recommends tha t these two clauses should be brought i n t o uniformity and a majority considered tha t the provision of A r t i c l e 16 ( l ) ( a ) namely tha t it should be the S ta t e of reg is t ry , is appropriate, However, t ha t appears t o the Committee t o require a decision by this Conference,

(5) It i s worthy of mention tha t it i s the intention of the s ingle f o m solution t o make the insurer or other person providing security subject t o d i r ec t act ion i n the courts of the place where the damage occurred i n a l l those cases i n which a d i rec t r ight of action ex i s t s under Article 16(3), (See pages 53 and 54 of t h l s uo2me,)

( 6 ) The Committee recommends tha t the wonts i n Article 16(2) reading Itthe insurer sha l l remain l i a b l e t o injured th i rd par t iesn should be omitted and the words "the security sha l l continue i n forceft be inserted i n t h e i r stead,

Document no BI G. Rep, Insurance

(1) The Conference approved a proposal t o examine whether it would be appropriate t o subs t i tu te Art ic le 12(3) of the Rome Convention f o r Art ic le 17(1), the main r e su l t of which would be t o include insurance i n that Article. The majority of the Committee prefer the Mexico City d r a f t and consider t h a t Article 17 should be confined t o other securi ty leaving Art ic le 18 t o cover the question of insurance. This a l so avoids technical d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the English t ex t i n connection with assignment of insurance policies.

(2) Consideration was also given t o subst i tut ing the l a s t sentence of Article 12(2) of the Rome Convention f o r Art ic le 17(3) of the Mexico City text. Article 12(2) provides :

nAny such deposit of money o r bank guarantee must be made up t o the f u l l amount a s soon a s the sums which it represents a re valued and be diminished by a payment of compenaationno

A majority considered tha t Art ic le 17(3) should be retained but t h a t the Drafting Committee should seek t o c l a r i f y possible ambiguities demonstrated by the Delegate f o r Switaerland i n the French text.

DRAFT TEXTS

1 ) Any Contracting Sta te may require t h a t the pera at or of an a i r c r a f t registered i n another contrauting Sta te sha l l be insured i n respect of his l i a b i l i t y for damage contemplated i n Art ic le 1 sustained i n its t e r r i t o r y by means of insurance up t o the l i m i t applicable according t o the provisions of Art ic le 11.

2) The insurance s h a l l be accepted a s sat isfactory i f it conforms t o the provisions of this Convention and has been effected by an insurer authorized o r permitted t o e f fec t such insurance under the laws of the S ta t e where the a i r c r a f t i s r e ~ i s t e r e d o r the S ta t e where the insurer has h i s principal place of business, and whose f inancia l responsibfli ty has been ver i f ied by e i the r of those States.

3 Notwithstanding the l a s t preceding paragraph the S ta te ovexflown may refuse t o accept a s sa t i s fac tory insurance effected by-an insurer who L has h i s r i n c i m l place of business i n non-contracting state/ f i s not authorized f o r t h a t

Purpose i n a contracting 8tatJ.

4 ) Instead of insurance, any of the following seour i t ies s h a l l be deemed sat isfactory i f the securi ty conforms t o Art ic le 17:

(a ) a cash deposit i n a depository maintained by the contracting S ta t e where the a i r c r a f t is registered or with a bank duly . authorized o r permitted t o a c t as a depository by that S ta te ;

(b) a guarantee given by a bank authorized o r permitted t o do so by the contracting S t a t e where the a f r c r a f t is registered;

( c ) a guarantee given by the uontracting S ta t e where the a i r c r a f t i s registered, if t h a t S ta t e undertakes t h a t i t w i l l not claim immunity from s u i t i n respect of t h a t guarantee.

5 Subject t o paragraph (6) of t h i s Article, the S ta t e overflown may a lso require that the a i r c r a f t s h a l l carry a c e r t i f i c a t e issued by the insurer cer t i fy ing that insurance has been effected i n accordance with the provisions of t h i s Conven- tion, and specifying the person or persons whose l i a b i l i t y i s seoured thereby, together with a c e r t i f i c a t e o r endorsement issued by the amrowriate authori tg i n the S ta te where the a i r c r a f t is regis tered or the S ta t e where the insurer has h i s principal lace of business verifying the f inancial responsibi l i ty of the insurer. If other securi ty is furnished i n accordance with the provisions of paragraph (4) of this Article, a c e r t i f i c a t e t o that e f fec t s h a l l be issued by the appropriate authority i n the S ta te where the airoraf t i s registered. Recommended forms of such oer t i f ica tes a re s e t out i n the Annex t o t h i s Convention.

Document no V I G, Rep Insurmce

6 1 The c e r t i f i c a t e referred t o i n paragrash ( 5 ) of t h i s Article need not be carr ied i n the a i r c r a f t i f a ce r t i f i ed copy has been f i l e d with the appropriate authority designated by the S ta t e overflown.

7 (a) Where the S ta te overflown has reasonable grounds fo r doubting the f inancial responsibil i ty of the insurer, o r of the bank which issues a guarantee under paragraph (4) of t h i s Article, t h a t S ta t e may request additional evidence of f inancial responsibi l i ty and i f any question a r i se s a s t o the adequacy of tha t evidence the dispute affect ing the States concerned sha l l be submitted t o an a r b i t r a l t r ibunal which sha l l be e i the r the Council of the International C iv i l Aviation Organization o r an a r b i t r a l t r ibunal mutually agreed by the parties.

(b) Until t h i s t r ibunal has given i ts decision the insurance o r guamntee sha l l be considered provisionally valid by the S ta t e overf'lown,

8 > Any requirements imposed i n accordance with t h i s Art ic le s h a l l be not i f ied t o the Secretary General of the International Civi l Aviation Organization who sha l l inform each contracting State thereof,

91 For the purpose of t h i s Article, insurer includes a group of insurers, and f o r the purpose of paragraph (5) of this Article, amropr ia te authority i n a S te te fnclules the appropriate authority i n the highest po l i t i ca l subdivision thereof which regulates the business of the insurer a t the time the c e r t i f i c a t e was issued,

ARTICLE 16

1) The insurer o r other person providing securi ty f o r the Aiabi l i ty of the operator may i n addition t o the defences available t o the operator L and without prejudice 50 any recourse he may have against the party insured, guaranteed or in- demnif ied~ ' interpose the following defences against claims based on the a u ~ l i c a t i o n of this Convention:

(a ) t ha t the damage occurred a f t e r the securi ty ceased t o be effective. However, i f the securFty expires during a f l i ~ h t , it sha l l be continued i n force u n t i l the next landing specified i n the f l i g h t plan but no longer than twenty-four hours; and i f the securi ty ceases t o be effect ive f o r any reason other than the expiration of its term, it sha l l be continued u ~ t i l the withdrawal of the c e r t i f i - cate referred t o i n paragraph (5 ) of Article 15 becomes effective, but not beyond f i f t een days a f t e r the not i f icat ion t o the S ta t e where the a i r c r a f t i s registered by the insurer o r the guarantor tha t the securi ty has ceased t o be effect ive,

(b) tha t the damage occurred outside the te r r i tor ia l . l imi t s provided f o r by the security, unless f l i g h t outside of such limits was caused by force majeure, assistance jus t i f ied by the circwnstances, or an er ror i n piloting, operation or navigatian,

2 ) In case the operator i s changed with the consent of the o r i ~ i n a l , operator during the period of insurance contract, the insurer sha l l remain l i a b l e t o injured tMrd part ies as i f no t ransfer had taken place, provided t h a t the,duration of such obligation s h a l l not extend beyond seven days from the time when the insurer not i f ies the appropriate authority of the S ta te where the insurance c e r t i f i c a t e was issued t h a t the insurance has been cancelled,

31 Without prejudice t o m y r igh t of d i r ec t action which he may have under the law governing the contract of insurance or guarantee, the person suffering damage may bring a d i r ec t action against the insurer or guarantor only i n the following cases :

(a ) where l i a b i l i t y i s extended, under the provisions of paragraph (1) l a ) and ( b l and paragrrnh (2J of t h i s Article, f o r the benefit of the person suffering damage;

(b) i n case of the bankruptcy of the operator,

4 ) Rxcsptlng t h ~ defense8 a p e i f l e d i n paragraph ( l ) ( a ) and (b) of this Article and the defence of forgery, the insurep or other person provfdfng securi ty m y not ~ 5 t h respect t o d i rec t aotions brought by the person suffering damage based upon application of t h i s Convention, ava i l himself of any grounds of nul l f ty or any r igh t of re?xoaotive cancellation,

5 3 The provisions of this Article sha l l not prejudice the question whether the insurer or guarantor has a r ight of recourse against any other person*

1 > If securi ty i n a form othep than insurance is furnished it sha l l be spbcif ical ly and preferent ial ly assigned t o payment of claims under the provisions of this Convention,

2 1 The security sha l l be deemed suf f ic ien t i f , i n a case of an operator of one a i r c r a f t , it i s i n an amount equal t o the limit applicable aocordfng t o the provisions of Art ic le 11, and i n the case of an operator of several a i r c ra f t , i f it is f o r an amount not l e s s than the aggregate of the l i m i t s of l f a b f l i t y applicable t o the two a i r c r a f t subject t o the highest l imi ts ,

3 A s soon as notice of a claim has been given t o thetoperator, the amount of the securi ty s h a l l be increased t o a t o t a l sum equivalent t o (a) the amount of the securi ty then required by paragraph (2) and (b) the amount of the claim not exceeding the l i m f t of l i a b i l i t y applicable t o the a i r c r a f t causing the damage, This increased securi ty sha l l be maintained u n t i l the claim has been disposed of,

ARTICLE 18_

Any sums due t o an operator from an insurer o r guarantor shall be exempt from seizure and exeeu%fon by creditors of the operatop unP,fl claims of th i rd par t ies under t h i s Convention have been sa t i s f ied ,

DRAFT

PRgPAlU3 BY THE DRAFTING COMMITTliZ

FOR THE SEOND READING

nw2

PREPARED BY xH_E DFAFTING C O l J M I @ P

FOR THE: SECOND READING _ r _ L U - . j r U I - * D U - - -

(29 September 1952) (l)

(1) A n y person who su f f e r s damage on the surface, shal l , upon proof only tha t the damage was eaused by an a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t OT by any person o r thing f a l l i n g therefrom, be en t i t l ed t o compensation as provided by this Convention, Neverthelesss there s h a l l be no r igh t t o empensation, i f the damage i s not a d i r eo t consequence of the incident giving r i s e thereto, o r i f the damage r e su l t s from the mere f a c t of passage of the a i r c r a f t through the airspace i n conformfty with ex is t ing a i r t r a f f i c regulations,

(2) For the purpose of t h i s Comention, an a i r e r d t f a considered tu be i n faght from the moment when power is applied f o r the purpose of ac tua l take-off u n t i l the moment when the landing run ends, or, i n the case of ve r t i ca l f l i g h t , u n t i l the moment when i t comes to r e s t again on the s u ~ f a c e , Pn the case of an a i r c r a f t l fgh te r than a i r , the expression Win fl ightso means the period from the moment when it becomes detached from the surface u n t i l it becomes again attached thereto,

(1) The l i a b i l i t y f o r compensation contemplated by b t i c l e l. of this Con- ventf on s h a l l a t tach to the operator of the a i r c r a f t ,

Q 29 (a) For the purposes of t h i s Convention the term % p e r a t o r l h h a l l mean the person who was making use of the a i r c r a f t a t the time the damage was caused, provided tha t i f control of the navigation of the a i r o r a f t was retained by the person frm whom the r i g h t t o make use of the a i r c r a f t was derived, whether d i r ec t ly o r ind i rec t ly tha t person s h a l l be consfdered the operator,

(b) A person s h a l l be considered t o ha meking use of asi a i r c r a f t when he i s using it personally or when h i s servants o r agorrts are using the a i r c r a f t while performing functions f o r which they were employed, whether o r not within the scope of the i r authority,

(3 ) The registered owner of the a i r c r a f t s h a l l be presumed t o be the operator and sha l l be l i a b l e as such unless, i n ths proceedings f a r the determination of h i s l i a b i l i t y , he proves t ha t some other person i s the operator and, having regard t o the legal procedures available, takes apprcpriate measures t o procure the joinder of t h a t other person i n the proeeedfngs,

Pf the person who was the aparator a t the time the damage was caused had not the exclusive r i gh t t b use the a i r c r a f t for a porkad of more than l.4 days, dating from the moment when the s igh t t o use comenced, the perscn from whom such r igh t was derived s h a l l be l i a b l e jointly atrd several ly with the operator, each of thorn being bound undas the provisf ons and within the 1h i . t~ of t h f s Convention,

('l)This Gonferenee considwed t,hia d r a f t from 29 September (afternoon) to 3 October (afternoon) ,- See Val, f pages 371 - 506,

I f a person makes use of an a i r e r a f t without the consent of the qerson e n t i t l e d t o i t s navigat ional cont ro l , the 1-attes, unless he proves t h a t he has exer- c ised due ca re t o prevent such use, s h a l l be j o i n t l y and severa l ly l i a b l e Kith tihe unlawful user f o r damage caused according t o the provisions of Ar t ic le 1, each of them being bound under the provisions and within the l i m i t s of t h i s Convention.

Any person otherwise l i a b l e under the provisions of t h i s Convention s h a l l not be l i a b l e i f the damage i s the d i r e c t consequence of armed c o n f l i c t o r c i v i l d i s - turbance, o r i f such person has been deprived of t he use of the a i r c r a f t by a c t of pu- b l i c authori t y ,

(11 No person who would otherwise be li able under the provis ions of t h s Con- vention s h a l l be l i a b l e f o r damage i f he proves t h a t the damage was caused so l e ly through the negligence o r other wrongful a c t o r omission of the person who s u f f e r s t he damage o r of the l a t t e r u s servants o r agents, If the person l i a b l e proves t h a t the damage was con- t r ibu ted t o by the negligence o r o ther wrongfu$ a c t o r omission of t h e person who su f f e r s t he damage, o r of h i s servants o r agents, the compensation s h a l l be reduced t o the ex ten t t o which such negligence o r wrongful a c t or omission contributed t o t h e damage* Never- t he l e s s t he re s h a l l be no such exonerat i on o r reduction i f , i n the case of the negligence o r o ther wrongful a c t o r omission of a servant o r agent, the person who su f f e r s t he damage proves t h a t h i s servant o r agent was ac t ing outs ide the scope of h i s authority,

%2b When the damage r e s u l t s from the death o r in jury of a person and gives r i s e t o a e l a h f o r compensation, the negligence o r o ther wrongful a c t o r omission of such person, o r of h i s servants o r agents, s h a l l a l so have the e f f e c t provided i n the preceding paragraph,

(1) When damage r e s u l t s from an inc ident i n which two o r more a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t a r e involved, and it cannot be proved which a i r c r a f t caused the damage, the operators of these a i r c r a f t s h a l l be l i a b l e under the condit ions and subject t o t h e l M k s governing t h e i r respec t ive l i a b i l i t i e s under t h i s Convention, They s h a l l be j o i n t l y and seve ra l ly l i a b l e t o the extent t h a t t h e i r obl igat ions coincide,

( 2) The operator of an le ireraf t which, by i t s manoeuvres o r a co l l f s ion , leads another a i r e r a f t i n f l i g h t t o cause damage on the surface, s h a l l not be l i a b l e under the provisions of t h i s Convention, Nevertheless the provisions of Ar t i c l e s U. and 12 s h a l l apply i f li a b i l i t y i s imposed upon him by v i r t u e of any other l aw .

The passoas re fer red t o i n paragraph ( 3 ) af Ast ic le 2 and i n Ar t i c l e s 3 and 4, shall be e n t i t l e d t o all defences which a r e evaalable t o a n operator under t he provisions of t h i s Cow e n t i ono

Subject t o the provisions of Asticlo 7D paragraph (21, n e i t h e r the operator, the ownep, any person l i a b l e under Ar t i c l e s 3 and 4 , nor t h e i r respec t ive servants o r agents, s h a l l be l i a b l e f o r damage on the surface caused by an a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t o r ahy p r s o n o r thing f a l l i n g therefrom otherwise than a s expressely provided i n t h i s Conven- t ion , This r u l e s h a l l not apply t o any such person who i s gu i l t y of an a c t o r omission done with i n t e n t t o cause damage o r who makes unlawful use of an a i r c r a f t i n the manner re fer rsd t o i n Ar t ic le 4,

Nothing i n t h i s Convention s h a l l prejudice the quest ion whether a person l i a b l e f o r damage i n accordance with i t s provisions has a r i g h t of recourse against aqv o ther persono

(21

0~ Subject t o the provisions of Artfcabee 1 2 and U, %he l i a b i l i w f o r damage contemplated i n Article 1, f o r each airoraft and incident, i n respeet of d1 persons l iab le under t h i s Convention, s h d l not exceeds

$a) 500,008 franc@ f o r a i scr&-& weighing 1,809 kilogrmm8s or leas;;

(b) 500,000 francs @us 400 f r w a per Pcflopamme over 1,000 kilo& g s m a f o r a i r c ra f t weighing more than P,QOO but not exceeding 6,808 k i %ogrameeg

(c) 2,500,008 francs plus 2% francs per kilogramme over 6,000 kilogrammes f o r erireraft weighing more than 6,000 but not exceeding 20,000 Mlogrammesg

Q'd 1 6,800,OQQ francs plus 150 francs per kf logsame over 20,000 Mfc- gsames f o r a i r c ra f t weighing more than 20,000 but not exceeding 50,000 kfl0~8DIlIl~S 5

(el) abQ, f~OQ,080 franos plus 100 franes p r kf logramme over 50,008 kilo- granmnes f o r dmraft weighing more than 50,000 Hlograp~pe~,

(2) The l i a b i l i t y %an respect of Pose of U f e or p e r s ~ n d in jury sha l l not exeeed 300,QQO franes per person k i l led or injured,

(31 Weight" means the maximum weight of the a i m r a f t authorised b$ the cer- t i f i c a t e of airworthiness f o r take-off, excluding the e f fec t of l i f t i n g gas, when used.

(4) The sorrms mentioned i n francs i n t h i s ~ r t i c l e r e fe r t o a currency unit consisting of 65& milUg;~a%lsl of gold of m i ~ e a b a l finenesa 900, These sums may be cono verted in to national cmrenaefee i n round figurea, Gomession of t ~ l e sums in to national cmrenefes other than gold shal l , i n ease sf Judfeial proaedings, be made according t o the gold value of such aurreneies a$ the datb of the allocation under m%fcle U or, if there is no such allocation, a t the date sf the Judgmento

(1) If the persons who suffers damage proves tha t it was oaused by a delfbe- rate ac t or dss iaa of taPe operator, hfo servants or agents, done with in ten t t o @awe damage, the l i a b i l i t y af the operator s h d be unlimited, d e s s i n the ease of an a c t or csnfss%oa of the s m & s or agents concerned, the operator proves tha t he exercised due care t o avoid such ac t o r omission or tha t the a c t or miss ion would have occurred men i f he had exercised due care t o avoid it,

2 ) If a person wrongfully =takes and makes use of an a i r c ra f t without, %he consent of the person ent i t led t o use it, his l i a b i l i t y s h d l be unlimited,

Uhen the provisions of ArbiePe " B e applicable, the person who suffers t b damage s h a l l be entit led t o be compensated np t o the aggrega%e of the U t s apph%- cuUe to each of the a i r c r a f t involved, but nc operator sha l l be l i a b l e f o r a sum i n excess of the U t apglieable t o Ma d r e r a f t unless his l%abilf.ty is ta%llfnn%ted under the tam of Qst ic le l2,

If" the t o t a l amount of the claims established exceeds the Elmfts of l i a b i - l i t y made applicable thereto by the provisions of this Conventions the following rules shall apply, taking in to account the provisions of paragrapla (2) of Ar t ic le 1 1 s

(a ) I f the claims are exclusively i n respect of loss of l i f e or personal injury or exclusively i n respect of damage t o property, such claims s h d be reduced i n proportion t o t h e i r respective amounts,

(31

Document no PI& - 232 -

(b) f f the claims a re both i n respect of l o s s of l i f e or personal in jury and i n respect of damage t o property, one half of the t o t a l sum distribu- tab le s h a l l be appropriated preferent ia l ly t o meet claims i n respect of l o s s of l i f e o r personal in jury and, if insuf f ic ien t , shall be dis t r ibuted proportionally between the c l a i m concerned, The remainder of the t o t a l sum dis t r ibu tab le s h a l l be dis t r ibuted proportionally among the claims i n respect of damage t o property and the portion not already cwered of the claims i n respect of l o s s of l i f e and personal injury,

6HAP6Etx

SZURITY FOR OPERATORUS LIABILITY

(see d ra f t provisions prepared by the Committee on Insurance, i n thf s Volume, pages 223-225 )

m T A T I O N OF ACTIONS

If a claimant has not brought an act ion t o enforce h i s claim or i f noti- f i ca t ion of such elaim has not been given t~ the operator w%thin a.per"iod of s ix months f m the date of the incident which gave r i s e t o the damage, the claimant s h a l l only be en t i t l ed t o compensation out of the amount f o r which the operator ~ e m a i n s l i ab l e a f t e r all claims made within t h a t period have been met i n f u l l ,

(1) Actions f o r compensat%on under the provisions of this Cornrention may be brought only %@fore the courts of the place where the damage occurred Nevertheless, by agreement between a l l persons who have brought an action or made a claim f o r compensation within the period contemplated by U t i c l e 19 and .the persons from whom payment of campensation may be claimed under the provisions of t h i s Convention, a l l actions i n respect of such-claims m a y be brought before the courts of any Contracting State , Under the same conditions such pa r t i e s may submit the dispute t o a rb i t r a t i on i n any Gontsac ti ng Sta te ,

(2) Each Contracting S ta t e s h a l l take a l l necessary measures t o ensure t h a t the defendant and all other par t ies interested a re not i f ied of any proceedings concerning them and have a f a i r and adequate opportunity t o defend t h e i r i n t e r e s t s ,

(3) Each Contracting S ta t e s h a l l so f a r as possible ensure t h a t a l l actions a r i s ing from a s ing le incident and brought i n a~cordance with paagraph (1) of t h i s Article a re consolidated f o r disposal i n a s ingle proceeding before the same d&t.

(41 Where any f i n a l judgment including a judgment by default , i s pronounced by a court competent i n eonformfty with t h i s Convention, on which execution can be issued according t o the procedural law of t ha t court, the judgment s h a l l be enforceable upon compliance with the formal i t ies prescribed by the l a w s of the Contraoting State, o r of a m t e r r i t o r s , S t a t e o r Province thereof, where execution i s applied for ,

(a) i n the Contracting S ta t e where the judgment debtor has h i s res i - dence o r principal place of business or,

(b) i f the assets available i n t ha t S t a t e and i n the S ta te where the judgment was pronounced a re insuf f ic ien t t o s a t i s f y the judgment, i n any other Contracting S ta t e where the judgment debtor has assets ,

(5 ) The meri ts of the case may not be reopened i n proceedings f o r execution under paragraph ( 4 ) of t h i s Art ic le ,

(6) Notwfthstandfng the provisions of paragraph (49 of t h i s Art ic le the court t o which appl ica t ion i s made f o r execution may refuse t o i ssue execution i f i t i s proved t h a t any of the following circumstances a d s t :

(a) the judgment was given by d e f a u l t and t h a t the defendant d i t no% acquire knowledge of the proceedings i n s u f f i c i e n t time t o a c t upon it;

b the defendant was not given a f a i r and adequate opportunity t o defend h i s i n t e r e s t s ;

(c ) the judgment i s i n respec t of a cause of act ion which had already, a s between the same pa r t i e s , formed the subject of a judgment o r an arbl- t r a l award which i s .recogniaed under the law of t h a t court a s f i n a l and conelusive;

(d) t h e judgment has been obtained by fraud of any of the par t ies ;

( e ) t h e r i g h t t o enforce the judgment i s not vested i n the person by whom t h e appl icat ion f o ~ execution i s made under the law of t h e court t o which appl icat ion f o r execution is made,

( 9 ) The court t o which appl ica t ion f o r execution is made may a l so refuse t o i ssue execution i f the judgment concerned is contrary t o i t s public policy.

(8 1 I f , i n proceedings brought amording t o paragraph (4) of t h i s Art ic le , execution of any judgment is refused on any of t h e grounds re fer red t o i n sub-paragrophs ( a I o (b) o r (d) of paragraph (6) o r paragraph (7) of t h i s Art ic le , the claimant s h a l l be e n t i t l e d t o br ing a new ac t ion before the cour t s of the S t a t e where execution has been refused, The judgment rendered i n such new a c t i on must not r e s u l t i n the t o t a l cumpen- s a t ion awarded exceeding the l i m i t s applicable under the provisions of this Convention. I n such new ac t ion the previous judgment s h a l l be a defence only t o the extent t o which it has been s a t i s f i e d , The previous judgment s h a l l cease t o be enforceable as soon a s the new ac t ion has been s t a r t e d ,

The r i g h t t o br ing a new act ion under t h i s paragraph shall, notwithstanding the provi sfons of Ar t i c l e 21, be subject t o a period of l imi t a t ion of one year from the da te on which the claiman$ has received no t i f i ca t ion of' the r e fusa l t o execute the judgnent.

(9) Notwithstanding paragraph (4 ) of this &Article, the cour t applied t o s h a l l refuse executfon u n t i l f i n a l judgment has been given on a l l act ions f i l e d by those persons who have complied with the t ime-limit referred t o i n Ar t i c l e 19 i f the judgment debtor proves t h a t the t o t a l amount of compensatf on whf ch might be awarded by such judgments might exceed the applicable l i m i t of l i a b i l i t y under the provisions of t h i s Conven- t i o n and s h a l l n o t grant execution on such judgments when they exceed i n the aggregate the applicable l i m i t u n t i l they have been reduced i n accordance with Ar t i c l e l.4 by the cour t s of the S t a t e where the act ions were brought.

(10) Where a judgment i s rendered enforceable under t h i s Art ic le , payment of cos ts recoverable under the judgment s h a l l a l so be enforceable. Nevertheless the cour t applied t o f o r execution may, on the appl icat ion of the judgment debtor, l i m i t the amount of such cos t s t o a sum equal t o t e n per cent of t h o amount f o r which the judgment i s rendered enforceable, The limits of l i a b i l i t y prescribed by t h i s Convention s h a l l be exclu- s ive of costs ,

(11) I n t e r e s t not exceeding four per cent per annum may be allowed on ';;ha judgment debt from the da t e of the judgment i n respect of which execution i s granted.

( 12) A judgment t o which paragraph ( 4 ) appl ies s h a l l only be enforceable within f i v e years from the da te on which it became f ina l ,

ARTICLE: 21

(1) Actions f o r compensation under t h i s Convention s h a l l be subject t o a period of l imi ta t ion of two years f ro= the date of the incident which caused the danege,

(26 The grounds f o r suspension or in te r rupt ion of the period referred t o i n paragraph (1) s h a l l be determined by the law of the court t ry ing the action; but i n ony case the r i g h t t o i n s t i t u t e an ~ c t i o n s h a l l be extinguished on the expirat ion of th ree years from the date of the inc ident which caused the d ape, 7%

I n the event of the death of tho pcrson l i a b l e , an act ion i n respect of l i a b i - iiky under the provisions of t h i s GoltrventPorl s h a l l l i e against his e s t a t e or against thoso l e g a l l y responsible f o r h i s obl igat ions according t o the law applicable i n the S ta t e where the ac t ion i s brought,

( 7 3 This Convention appl ies t o damage con~ernplated i n e r t f c l e 1 caused i n the t e r r i - tory of a Contracting S ta t e by an a i r c r a f t rcgis tercd i n the t e r r i t o r y of noth her Contr:,c- t i n g S ta t e ,

2) For the purpose of t h i s Convention a sh ip o r a i r c r a f t on the high seas s h a l l be regarded a s pa r t of the t e r r i t o r y of the S t a t e i n which it i s regis tered.

This Convention does not apply t o damage caused t o an a i r c r a f t i n f l i g h t , o r t o persons o r goods on board such a i r c r a f t ,

ARTICLE 25

This Conventfon s h a l l not apply t o damage i f l i a b i l i t y f o r such damage i s regum l a t ed s i t h e r by a contract between the person who su f f e r s such damage and the operator o r the person e n t i t l e d t o use the a i r c r a f t a t the time the damage occurred, o r by the law re- l a t i ng t o workmen0 s compensation applicable t o a cont r ac t of employment between such persons,

This Gonventfon s h a l l not apply t o damage caused by mi l i t a ry , customs o r pol ice a i r c r a f t nor by an a i r c r a f t reg is te red i n the S t a t e where the damage occurred.

Contracting S ta t e s w i 11, a s f a r a s possible, f a c i l i t a t e payment of compensati on under the provisions of this Conventfon I n the currency of the S t a t e where the damage occurred,

For t he purposes of t h i s Conventions

Verson" means any na tu ra l o r l e g a l person, including a S ta te ,

"Temf t o n of a .Staten means the metropolf t an t e r r i t o s y of a S t a t e and all t e r - r i t o r i e s f o r the foreign r e l a t i o n s of which t h a t S t a t e i s responsible, subject t o the provisions of i r t i c1 . e 35.

lqE(ln&pae'ting State,'# means any S ta t e i n respec t of which t h i s Conventfon is i n force

I f l e g i s l a t i v e measures a r e necessary i n any Contracting State t o give e f f e c t t o t h i s Convention, the Secretary General of t he In te rna t iona l C i v i l Alvfatfon Organfaa- t i o n s h a l l be informed for thwith of t he measures so taken.

A s between Contracting S t a t e s vhich a r e a l so pa r t i e s t o t he In te rna t iona l Con- vention f o r t he Unification of Cer ta in ]Rules r e l a t i n g t o Damage caused by Aircraf t t o Third P a r t i e s on the Surface opened f o r signature a t Rome on the 29 May 1933D the presen t Conventfon supersedes the sa id convention of Rome,

PREPARED BY THE DRAFTING COMMZTTm

FOR Tm THIRD READING ('1

he Conference considered this draft on 5 October ( night) See Vol, I, pages 513-5&,

Document no V I I X

(1) No person who would otherwise be l i a b l e under the provisions of this Comention shall be l i a b l e f o r damage i f he proves t h a t the damage was caused ? . *

Neither the operatorp the owner, any persor l iab le under Art ic le 3 o r A r t i - c le 4, nor t h e i r respective servants o r agents, s h a l l be l i ab le f o r damage on the surface caused by an a i r c ra f t i q f l i g h t o r any person or t h i m f a l l i n g therefrcnu othervise than expressly provided i n this Comenti on, This ru le sha l l not apply t o any such person who is gu i l ty of a deliberate a c t o r omission done with in ten t t o cause damage,

EXTENT OF LIABILITX

(1) Whenever, under the provisfons of 4 r t f c l e 3 or Artfcle 4 two or wore persons are l i ab le f o r damage, or a r e i s te red owner who was mot the operator i s made l i a b l e as such as provided i n paragraph f 3 ) of Art ic le 2, the persons who suf fer damage shall not be e ~ t i t l e d t o compensation greater than the indemnity recoverable under Articles I1 and 1 2 from a m one of the persons l iable .

I f the t o t a l amount of the c lbms established exceeds the limit of l i a b i l i - ty made applicable thereto by the provisions of t h i s Convention the following ru les sha l l apply, taking in to account the provisions of paragraph (2) of Art ic le 11:

(b) . . . . . sha l l be dis t r ibuted proportionally between the claims concerned, a 0 0 * a * * e * o L 0 0 * L * a

SEURITY FOR OPERATORs S T-rPABIIJ'I'P:

ARTICLE 1%

1, Any Contracting Sta te may require t h a t the operator of an a i r c r a f t registered i n another Contracting Sta te s h a l l be insured in respect of hip l i a b i l i t y for damage f o r w h i ~ h a r i g h t t o compensation e x i s t s under Art ic le 1 susbined i n i ts t e r r i t o q by means of insurance up t o the limits applicable according t o the provisfons of Ar t ic le 11.

2, The insurance s h a l l be accepted as sa t i s fac tory i f it conforms t o the provisions of t h i s Convention and has been effected by an insurer authorized t o e f fec t such insurance under the laws of the State where the a i r c r a f t i s registered o r of the State where the insurer has h i s residence o r pr incipal place of business, and whose f insncial responsibi l i ty has been verif ied by e i t h e r of those Sta tes fincluding the abifity to pey claims i n the currency of the S ta t e requfrflsg the insurancg,

@> a guarantee given by a bank authorized t o do so by the Contracting S ta te where the a i r c r a f t i s registered;

5 o Subject t o paragraph (6) of t h i s Art ic le , the S t a t e overflown may also require t h a t the a i r c r a f t s h a l l carry a c e r t i f i c a t e issued by the insurer certif'fing t h a t insurance has been effected i n accordance with the provisions of t h i s Conven-' tion, and specifying the person or persons whose l i a b i l i t y i s secured thereby, toge- t he r with a c e r t i f i c a t e o r endorsement issued by the appropriate authori ty i n the S ta te where the a i r c r a f t i s registered or i n the S t a t e where the insurer has h i s r e d - dence or pr incipal place of business cer t i fy ing the f inanc ia l respons ib i l i ty of the insurer, Tf other securfty i s furnished i n accordance with the provisions of pafa- graph (4) of t h f s Article, a c e r t i f i c a t e t o t h a t e f f e c t s h a l l be issued by the appropr ia te authori ty i n the S ta te where the a i r c r a f t is regis tered, Recommended forms of such c e r t i f i c a t e s are annexed t o t h i s Convention,

(a) t h a t the damage occurred a f t e r the secur i ty ceased t o be effect ive, However, i f the securi ty expires during a f l i g h t , it s h a l l be continued i n force u n t i l the next landing specified i n the f l i g h t plan, but no longer than twenty-four hours; and i f the securi ty ceases t o be e f fec t ive f o r any reason other than the expiration of i t s term, o r a change of operator, it s h a l l be continued u n t i l f i f t e e n days a f t e r no t i f i ca t ion t o the appropriate authority which issued o r endorsed the c e r t i f i c a t e by the insurer o r the guarantor t h a t the securi ty has ceased t o be effective, o r u n t i l effect ive withdrawal of the c e r t i f i c a t e of the insurer o r guarantor i f such a c e r t i f i c a t e has been required under paragraph ( 5 ) of &rticle 15, whichever is the ea r l i e r ,

2 a The Sta t e which i ssues a c e r t i f i c a t e of insurance o r other securi ty s h a l l notify the termfnati on or cessation of the insurance o r other securi ty t o the interested Contracting S ta tes overflown as soon as possible.

40 The continuation i n force of the securi ty under the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Art ic le s h a l l apply only f o r the benefit of the person suffering damage,

6 a Excepting the defences specified i n paragraphs ( l ) ( a ) and (b) of t h i s Arti- c l e and the defence of forgery, the insurer or other person providing securi ty may not 8 0 o o D u D o o 6 6 0 + e 0 n o o 0 4 0

R U E OF PRQCEDURE AND LIMITATION OF ACTIONS

(1) Action under the provisions of t h i s Convention may be brought only before the courts of the Contracting S t a t e where the damage occurred, Nevertheless, agreement between any one or more claimants and any one or more defendants, such claimanLs m a y take action before the courts of any other Contracting State , but no such proceedings s h a l l have the e f f ec t of prejudicing in a w way the f i gh t s of persons who, xitXlin the period contemplated i n Art ic le 19, have brought actions i n the S t a t e where the damage oocurred or vho have not i f ied t h e i r claims t o the operator, The par t ies m y also agree t o submit disputes t o a rb i t r a t i on in a? Contracting State,

2)

( 1 the judgment is i n respect of a cause of act ion which had already, a s between t he same par t i es , formed the subject of a judgment or an e r b f t r e l award i n %he S t a t e where emout ion is sought which f s re~ognfzed under the l a w of t h a t S t a b as S ine l and conclusive;

Cm A judgment t o which paragraph ( 4 ) appl ies shall . only be enforceable within five years from the date on which it became f i na l ; p r ~ v i d e d t h a t t h i s limit shall be ebended by the period dcaring which the cour t applied t~ f o r execution has been required t o s tay execution by the appl icat ion of pzmgra& (91,

APPLICATION CF THE CONVENTION AND GENE8AL PROVISIOIQ

D O C U M E N T NO %X

T A B U O F CONCORDANCE O F ARTICLES

O F THE ROME CONVENTION (1933) AND BRUSSELS PROTOCOL (19381,

DRAFT R E V I S I O N S THEREOF AND ROME CONVENTION (1952)

Document n o e s A , *

TABLE O F CONCORDANCE O F ARTICLES O F THE ROME CONVENTION (1933) AND BRUSSELS PROTOCOL (19381,

DRAFT R E V I S I O N S THEREOF AND ROME CONVENTION (19%

ROME CONVENT1 ON ( O c t .l952)

T A O M N A ( Jan 1950)

ROMh; CONVENTION (oct,J-952)

MDMTREAL (June 1950

2(2) last Pas*

D O C U M E N T NO X

C O N V E N T I O N

on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface

C O N V E N T I O N

relative aux dommages causes aux tiers A la surface par des adronefs &rangere

C O N V E N I O

sobre dafios causados a terceros en la superficie por aeronaves extranjerae

ROME

7 Octtober 1952

ROMA 7 de octubre 1052

THE 8TATES SI.GNATOILY to this Convention

MOVED by a dosiro to e~lerii~o adequate compensation for persons who suffer dmago caused on tho surface by foreign aircraft, whilo limiting in a reasonable mannor the extent of the liabilities incurrod for such damsge in ordur not to hinder the development of intes- national civil air transport, and also

CONVINCED of tho need for unifying to the greatest rxl,ent possible, through an intern;~tional convention, tho rules apl~l ying in the various countries of tho world to the liabilities incurred lor such damage,

HBVE APPOINTXL) to such effect tho undersigned Ylmipoten- tiaries who, duly authorised, HAVJ3 AGREED AM FOLLOWS :

PRINOIPLEB OF LIABILITY

Article 1

1. Any person .\ ?ho rjun'rrs tiainagu on the surfaco shall, upon proof o d y that tho tlo~ungc Wibr cauhcd 11.q an aircraft in filglit or by any poreon or thing fullil~g tli,,rc41 om, be cnti tlotl to coinpcnrrati 111 .lv p~ovitl, 11 by this Cori- vention. Wuvw c lwlcrrs the1 o eh:~ll bu no right to cnlnpe~ib:atio~i if I 1w clanlago is not a dmv:t rorir;tkqueuco of tho incident givmg rise. thereto, or if tho (lamago rewltu f ~ i m tho mcro f w t of 1);LYRilgU of tllu sirmaft tllrough tlrc airspace jn confor~i~rly w ~ t h existing air trafflo reg ulrrttuna.

A N IM IC8 D U Dfis [It ci'iwurcr ulio iudomnisation bqaitablo uux personnus ayant. subi cles domma- g(?s U ~ L U S ~ R h la B U l l i t C ~ par due abronofs btr;~,ugiq tout en limi- taut d'uno n u ~ b r o raisonnable 116tcnduo dem responsabilitds en- courues pour de tels dornmages afin dc 110 p : ~ cutraver le dbvelop- yolne~~ t du transport adrien international, ct bgstlement

CON VAINCUS do la n6oe~sitd d'unificr ( l i ~ 1 1 ~ In, p 1 1 ~ large mcsure pi1sbiblt1, i1u ~ I I O J J P I ~ d'ullt9 conveu- tion i~ltc~m:~tionalt~, IPS rbglos :~ppLi- cables cl:rus lcs divore p y s du monde ;LUX ro~pontsabilit~cis cncou- rues pour do tcle ciommages,

OWT UESIGNE S cot ol'i'et lea P16nipotc1itiaim fioussign6s qui, dfi- nicnt autoris68, SONT CONVENUS D ES DISPOSITIONS SUIVAN- TES :

(JIIAPITXE I

PRINCIPES DE RXSPONSABILITE

Article premier

LO8 BS!11AD08 QUE PIltMdN cl prcscnto Convcnio,

ANIMhDOS POX EL 1)ESEO de gamntizsr una roparaei6n equi- tativa a 188 peraonas q11e sufran daiios causados en la superficio por aoronaves oxtranjeras, limitando a1 miemo tiempo, en forma razonabls, el alcance de las responsabilidades originadas por dichos daiios, con el lin clct no entorpecer el doeenvol- virniento del tramporte adreo hter- nacional y, del mismo modo,

CON VENCIDOS tle la necosidad de unificar por mcclio de un eon- vmio int.arn:~tional, or1 lit mayor extensirin posiblc, 10s preceptos vigcnLcs 011 10s &versos paises respecto a las responsabilidades oiigi- nadas por dichos daiios,

HAN NOMBRADO a tal efecto 10s infrascritos Plenipotenciarios quiones, debidamente autorizados, HAN CONVENIDO E N LAS SI- GUIENTES DISPOSICIONEB :

Articulo 1

1. La persona 9110 sufra dailos en la blq~csriicio tieno &I cch o a reparaci6n on lm eon(1iciones iijudns uu esto Con- vonio, con 6610 probar quu lofi dailoe provic11t.n ilu 1ma rlerona-\*o on v~~ulo , o do UIUL pcru.ni:b o una cosii, cahlib do In, mismw. Sin embargo, no habrl lug:rr :s rup;~r:~ci6n, si lo^ d:~fion no sou consecnenoia direotn do1 acuntccimiento quo 10s ha originado o si so deben a1 mere hocho ttel pneo do la aeromzve a travEs (lo1 uspacio a6rco do conformidad con 10s rcy$montos do t rhs i to aBreo apli- cablos.

Document no X

2. For tho purposo of t , lh Convon- tion, an aircmlt is considcrcd to bo in flight from the moment wllcn powcr is applied for the purpose of actual take- off until tlw monicnt when tho landing run onds. In tho case of an aircraft lighter than air, tho oxprcssion (1 in tlight D relales to tlio period from the moment when it I)c\comcv detached from the ~urfnco until i t beconm again attached thereto.

Article 2

1. The liability for compurisation contemplated by Articlo 1 of this Con- vention shdl attach to the operator of the aircraft.

2. (a) For the purposes of thie Convention the torm cc operator r shall mean the person who was making use of the aircraft a t the time the damage was caused, provided that if control of the navigation of tho aircraft was retained by tho person from whom the right to make use of the aircraft was derived, whetlmr directly or indirectly, that pcrson shall be considered the operat,or.

(b) A person shall be considered to be making use of an aircraft when he is using it personally or when hie servants or agents are using the aircraft in the course of their employmenb, w l ~ M ~ e r or not within the scope of their authorily.

3. The registered owncr of the aircraft shall bc prcbamcd to be the opcrator and shall 1)c liable as such unless, in thc proceedings for tho determine- tion of h ~ a liability, ho proves that some other pcrson was the operator and, in so fiw as logs1 proccdurea pormib, takcs appropriate ineasures to make that olhw pcrson a party in tho pro- cecdily~.

Article 3

If the pcrhon ~ v h o was tho operator a t the time the damage was caused hod not the cxclusivo right to use the aircraft for n period o f lmro than fourtcen h y h , 11~tjng fro111 tllc moment when t l~o right, t o uric conrrncl~ccd, the person froin I$ l~o ln such right was drrivetl sllnll Im liable jouitly and ~ovor~tlly with tho operator, each of them h i n g bound under thc provisions and \\ithiii the lirnitu of lidbility of Iliis O~nvcntion.

2. Aux fins do la, prdsc~nlo Convon- Lion, 1111 :uhne i oat oonsid(lr6 comlno on vol depiiis lo momcmt oh lib force mo- tricu ost c?inployPo pour ddcoller jusqu'ou momant oh 1'i~Llorriss:qp a pris lin. Lorsqu'il s'agit d'un i~(.riostat, lloxprcssion ccon v o l ~ ~'aypliquo it la, pdriode comprise entrc lo moment oil cot adrostit cst d6tachd du sol e t colui oh il y ost & nouveau tix6.

Article 2

1. L'obligation de reparer lo dommage vivO B llArticle premier de la, prhsente Convention incombe & l'exploitant de l'abronef.

2. (a) Adx fins de la prOsento Oonven- tlon, 19exploitrtnt eat celui qui utilise 19aOronef au moment oh le dommage eeb survenu. Toutefois, eat rOput6 btre llexploitant celui qui, ayant conf6r6 directement ou indirectement le droit d'utiliscr l'adronef, Pest reserve la direction de sa navigation.

(b) Est rdputd utiliser un aeronef celui qui en fait usage personnellement ou par I'intermddiaire do ses pr6posPs agissant ou cows do l'exercico de lours fonotions, quo ce soit ou non dans les limitcs do leim attributions.

3. Le propri6taire inscrit au rcgistre d'immatriculation cst prbsumd 6t;l.o l'exploitant et e ~ t responsable comme tell h moins qu'il no prouve, au coura de la procddure tendant & apprcicier Ra rcs- ponsabilit6, qu'unc nutro personne est l'exploitant, et qulil ne prenne alors, pour autnnt que la procddurelepermette, les mesures approprides pour mettre en cause cette personne.

Article 3

Lorsque la personne qui Otait l'cxploitant au moment oh lo dommage est survenu n'avait pas le droit cxclusif d'utiliser l'abroncf pour uno pbriode de plus de quatorzo jours calcul4s ti partir du moment oh lo droit d'utilfer l'a8ronef a pris naiss:~nce, celui qui l'a confdrb eat solidairement responsable avec clle, chacun d'eux &ant tenu dam les conditions et limitos de responsa- bilitn prdvuos par la prdsente Conven- Lion.

3. A IOU flllc~ dcl prcscnto Convenio, so co~isii)ora quo una acronave so en- clrantra cn vuelo Cosdo quo ~1e aplica la fucrza, motrie para dc~pegar hasta quo termina el recorricio do atcrrizaje. Bi se trata do una acronave m6s ligera quo cl aire, 1s exprcsi6n (1 en vuelo o se aplica a1 poriodo comprcndido dcsde el momento cn quo so denprende de la superfioio hasta aquOl en que queda amarrada nuevamento a Ovta.

Articulo 2

1. La obligaci6n de reperar 10s danos previstos en el articulo 1 del presente Convenio incumbe a1 operador de la aeronave.

2. (a) A 10s fines del presente Con- venio so considera 11 el operador s a quien usa la aeronave curtndo se causan 10s daiios. Sin embargo, tie considera cc el operador)) a quien, habiendo conferido, directa o indirectamentc, el derecho a w a r la aeronave se ha reservado el control de su navegaci6n.

(b) 80 considern quo usa una taero- nave a quien lo hace personalmente o por medio de sus clependicntes en el ejercicio de BUR funcionc~, act6en o no dentro de 10s limites de sus atribuciones.

3. El propietario inscrito en el registro de mntricnla se presume operador y responsable como tall a monos que pruobe, en el juicio para deterlninar su responsabilidad, que otxa persona es el opcrador y, en cnanto lo permitan 10s proccdimientos aplicables, tome las me- ditl:cs npropiadas para traerln al juicio.

Articulo 3

Si la persona que sea el operador cuando se caqsen 10s daflos no tuviera el derecho exclusive a usar la rteronave por un period0 de mhs do catorce dias, contado a partir del tlomento en quo mci6 el derecho o, usarln, quien lo ha conferido es s01id:~risni~nte responeablo con el operador, cetando obligado cada uno de ellos en Ins cond,iciones y limites de rosponsabilid~d previstos en c.il,e Convenio.

Article 4 Articlc 4 Articulo 4

If a pcrson ~ n ~ l t e s use of nu :~irc~r.hft without thc consc~it of tllc prrson rul il- led to its navigational aont,rol, tho lattcr, unless hc prows that 110 has excrciscd duo carc to prcvent such use, shall bc jointly m d scvcrally liablc with the unlawful user for damago giving a right to colnpcnsi~tion under Article 1, each of them bcing bound under the provisions ant1 within tho limits of liability of this Convention.

Si 11110 pchrsonrio utiliso 1111 ~6rollc.f H:LIN 10 ewns(~ntolnent de e:clui q ~ l i a lo dl-oil, do tlirigw s:b mivigr~tio~i, co deniier, B moins qu'il nc prouvc qu'il rr, apport0 lcs soins rcquirr pow h i t o r cat usago, ost solidairomcnt responsable avcc l'usagcr illdgitimc du dommago donnant licu 3r r0pamtion aux tcrmoa de 1'Articlo promicr, chacun d'eux &ant tcnu dans les conditions ot limites de responsabilit6 pr6vues par la prdsente Convent ion.

L3i w a pc:rsona usa una aeronave sin el conscntimiento do la quo tenga dcrccho a1 control de s s navegacitjn, ests liltima, si no pruoba qse tom6 la8 modidas debidas para cvitar ta l ueo, cs solidariamente responsable con el usuario ilegitimo de 10s dafios reparubles seg6n el articulo 1, cada uno de 0110s en la8 condiciones y lfmites de responsabilidad previstos en e8te Con- vcnio.

Article 5 Article 5 Articulo 5

Any person who mould otherwise be La pcrsonne dont la responsabilit6 La persona que seria reaponeable liable under the provisions of this Con- seratit angagbe aux termes de la pr6- conforme a este Convenio no 08th vention shall not bo liable if the damage sente Convention n'aura pas l'obliga- obligada a reparar lo$ dafios que is the direct consccluencc of armed con- tion de reparer le dommage ai celui-ci Sean consecuencia directa de conflic- flict or civil clisturbance, or if snch per- est la consBquence directo d'un conflif tos armados o disturbios civiles o ~i son has been deprived of tho use of the arm6 ou de troubles civil8 ou si cotte ha sido privada del uso de la aeronave aircraft by act of public authority. pervonne a 6tb privbe de l'usage de por acto de la autoridad phblica.

l'a6rouef par un acte de l'autoritb pu- bliyue.


1. Any person who would otherwise be liable under tho provisions of thie Convention shall not bc liable for damage if he proves that the damage was caused solely through tho nrgligcnco or other wrongful act or omission of tlie pcrson who suffers tho damage or of the Iat- tor's servants or agents. If the pcrson liable proves that the damage was oontributcd to by the ncgligencc or other wrongful act or omission of tho person who auffrrs the daniagc, or of his servants or agents, the compcll~ation shall be rctloccd to t l ~ e extent to which such n~gligc~ncc or wrongflil act or omission contril)utctl to the tl:~~najie. Nc- vertliclcss t lmt. d~:rll be 110 such cuon- erati011 or rctlwtion if, in tlie cane of the nvgligcwce or other wonglul act or omisxi011 of u 8erv;rnt or agcllt, the pcrvoll who suICerb the dmiagc proves tllat his swvmlt or ibgellt was acliug outsitie the scopa of i i i b authority.

2. Wlien :bn action is I)ronght by one person to recover cla~riagcs :irking from the death or injury of anotlier person, the ncgligcncc or 0 t h wrongful act or omission of such other pcrson, or of his servants or agents, shall also hnve tho effoct provided in the prc- cciling paragwph.

1. La pcrsollno dont 1a responsabi- lit6 scrnil cngagC.c aux tormcs de la prPsonto Convcntion n'aura pas I'obligation do rdparcr lo domrnago si olle proiivc qrle cc do~nmage cst dfi exclu- sivemcnt L la fautc dc la personne ayant subi lct domlrlngc ou de scs pr6- posc's. Si la pcrnonnc responsable prouve qrw le doinmirge a 6td caus6 en partie par la fnutc do In pcrsonne ayant subi le domniagc ou de ses prdpost!~, la reparation doit &trc r8duitc dans la mesure oh ccttc fauto a contribub au dommago. Tontefois, il n'y a pas licu b cxondra- tion 011 r6duction si, en cas de faute do scs pr4pos6s1 la personne ayant suhi le do~nm:~ye prouve quo ceux-ci ont agi cn clehors dcs limites do lours :~ttri- butions.

2. E n ces d'action intcllt6c par une pcrsonno, en rbparation d'un pr0judice r6sultant de la mart d'une autro per- sonnc ou des 16sions qtl'elle a subies, la faute de ceue-ci ou do sea pr6pos68 a anssi l e ~ el'fets prbvus nu paragraphe pr&t!dent.

1. La porsona que seria responsable seg6n este Convenio, estar4 exenti de responsabilidad si prueba que lon dafios fucron causados dnioamente por culpa de la persona que 10s sufra o de sue dependientes. 0i la persona responsable prueba que 10s dafios han sido causados en parte por culpa de la persona que 10s sufra o de sus dependientes, la indemnizacibn ae reducirh en la medida en que tal culpa ha oontri- buido a 10s dafios. Sin embargo, no habrb lugar a exencibn o reducci6n si, cn oaso de culpa de sus dependientes, la persona que sufra 10s dafios prueba que actuaron fuera de 10s limites de sus atribuciones.

2. Si 10s dafios resultantea de la muerte o lesiones de una persona sirven de fundamento a una acci6n de repa- racibn intentada por otm, la culps de aqu6lla o de sus dependienhs pro. ducir4 tambi6n 10s efectos previstos en el phrrafo anterior.

Article 7 Article 7 Artfculo 7

When two or more aircraft havo collided or interfcred with each othor in flight and dam3go for which a right to compensation as contemplntcd in Ar- ticle 1 results, or when two or moro aircraft havo jointly c:~nsed such damage, each of the :~ircr:~ft conccriic1d shall be considcrcd to hme c:~uscd the damage and the opcrator of iwl i aircraft shall be liable, each of them being bound ~zncicr tho provisions and within the limits of liability of this Uonvention.

Lorsquo d e u ou plusieurs adronefs en vol sont ontzbs en coliision 011 so sont ganda (inns lours dvolutions e t quo des domm:~gcs donmnt licu h r6- pmation anx Ltmics (lo 19Articlo promior on St~llt r68111tds, O I ~ Ioraq14e ifeitx ou pllrsir~zrs aclroric!fs onl, c:~llrrd do tols

8i dos o m%s aeronaves en melo entran en colisi6n o se perturban entre si, y resultan dafIos reparables se,@n el articulo 1, o si do8 o rnits aeronaves ocasiomn conjuntamento tales dafios, cada una do la0 aoronaves so considera como ca~i.santo del dano y el operador rerrpectivo scrh responsable on b s con- ilicioncs y limitcs de responsabilidad provistos on este Convenio. c:~11si\ lo domm:lgu ct 1'exploit;mt do

cl~:rclm d'uux 08t responsablo d a n ~ les conditions ct linliterr d o reaponsabilit6 pldvucs par la prd~onte Convention.


The persons referred to in paragraph 3 of Article 2 and in Articles 3 and 4 shall bo entitled to d l defcnces which are available to an operator under the provisions of this Convention.

Los porsonnes visOes nu paragraphe 3 do l'hrticle 2 et aux Articles 3 ut 4 pouvent opposer tous les moycns de ddfcnsc qui appartiennent h l'cxploitant aux tcrmcu do la prCsonte Oonven- tion.

Lne personas mencionadas en el p& rrafo 3 do1 articulo 2 y e n 10s artfculos 3 y 4, podrBn oponer las excepciones que corrospondan a1 oporador seg6n este Convenio.


El operador, el propietario, la persona responsable do acuerdo con loe articulos 3 o 4, o sus dependientes, no serhn responsables do 10s danos causados por una aeronave en vllelo o personas o cosau caidas de la misma, quo no scan 10s expresamente previstos en el prosento Convenio. Esta disposicibn no tre aplica a la persona quo tenga la intencibn deliberada de provocar nn dano.

Neither tho operator, the owner, any person Liable under Article 3 or Articlo 4, nor thcir respective servants or agents, shall bc liable for damage on tho surf:~ce caused by a n aircraft in flight or any person or thing falling therefrom otherwise than as expressly provided in this Couvontion. This rulo shall not apply to any such person who is guilty of a doliborato act or omission done with intent to cause damage.

L'oxploitant, lo propri6tair0, toute purrJonno respons:~ble en vcrtu des Articles 3 ou 4 ou lcurs prdposds n'en- coirrcnt d'autro rt!sponsabilit6, en ce qui concernc Ics dorrmlagcs provenant dlun :~6ronc:f en vol 011 d'uno por- sonno ou d'une clloscl tombant do celui-ci, quo cello exprcssdiuont prdvuo par la pr6sento Convention. Cette disposition no s'appliq~~a pas B 1% personno qui a eu l'iutention dBlib6r6e do provoquer un dommage.

Article 10

Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice cne question whether a person liable for darnago in accordance with its provisious hibS right of recourse against any other person.

Articulo 10

Ninguna de las disposicionee del presente Convenio prejuzga la cuesti6n do si la persona responsable de aouerdo con]ol mismo tiene o no derecho a repetir contra algma otra persona.

Article 10

La pr6sento Convention no pr6jugo en aucune msnibro la question do savoir si la personne tonue pour responsable en vortu do ses dispositions a ou non un rocours contro touto autre pcrsonne.

(IAPITULO 11

EXTENBION DE LA RESPON8ABILIDAD

E'PEFJDUB DE LA BBSPONSABILITE

Articulo 11 Article 11 Article 11

1. Sin porjuicio de lo dispuesto en el articulo 12, la cuanticl de 1s indemniza- ci6n por 10s dailos reparables segfin el articulo 1, a cargo do1 conjunto de personas responsables do acuerdo con el prosento Convenio, no excedord por acronavo y nccidonto de :

1. Sous rBscrve des dispositions de 1'Articlo 12, le montnut do la rdpara- tion duo par l'cnwmble dos porsonnes respwu:ddcs c~ux termcs dc la prdsentu Convention pour un dorntn:qp don- n:~nt lieu h r6parntion mrx Lcrmcs tlc 1'Article prcinicr, no puar~a cxcbdcr, par a h n c f ct par c!vCncmcnt:

(a) 800 000 francs for aircraft wei- (a) 600 000 francs pour les abronefs (a) 500 000 francos, para h s aero- ghing 1000 kilogrammes or lese ; donl; le poids est infbricur on bgal B naves cuyo peso no exceda de 1000

1000 kilogrammes ; kilog-ramos ;

(b) 600 000 francs plus 400 franc8 ( b ) 600 000 francs plus 400 francs ( b ) 600 000 francos, d s 400 francos per kilogramme over 1000 kilogrammce par kilogrammo oxoddant 1000 kilogram- por kilogramo que pase de 10s 1000, for aircraft weighing more than 1000 mes pour les a6ronefs dont le poids est para aeromves que pesen m4s de 1000 but not exceeding GO00 kilogrammes ; supbriour b 1000 kilogrammos ot inf6- y no excedan de 6000 kilogramos;

riour ou Bgal b 0000 kilogrammes ;

( 0 ) 2 600 000 francs plus 260 francs (o) 2 GOO 000 francs plus 250 francs (o) 2 600 000 franoos, mbs260 fran- per kilogramme over 6000 kilogrammos par kilogramme oxc6dant 0000 kilo- cos por kilogramo que pase de 10s 6000 for aircraft weighing more than GOO0 grammes pour lcs abronofs dont le para aeronaves que pesen m&s de 6000 but not exceeding 20 000 kilogrammcs ; poids ost sup6rieur h 6000 kilogrammes y no excedan de 20 000 kilogramos ;

ot infbricur ou bgal h 20 000 kilogrammes ;

(d) 6 000 000 franctl plus 160 francs (d ) 6 000 000 de francs plus 160 ( d ) 6 000 000 de francos, m8s 160 per kilogrammo over 20 000 kilogram- francs par kilogramme excedant 20 000 francos por kilogramo que pase de 10s me8 for a icmf t weighing more than kilogramnles pour les a6ronels dont le 20 000 kilogramos para aeromves que 20 000 but not exceeding 60 000 kilo- poids est sup6rieur B 20 000 kilogram- pesen m&s de 20 000 y no excedan de grammes ; mes et inf6rieur ou Bgal & 60 000 kilo- 60 000 kilogram08 ;

grammes ; :! . 1 (e) 10 BOO 000 francs plus 100 (e) 10 600 000 francs plus 100 (e) 10 600 000 francos, d s 100fran-

francs per kilogramme over 60 000 ki- francs par kilogrammo excddant 80 000 cos por kilogramo que pase de 108 logrammes for aircraft weighing more kilogrammes pour les a6ronefs dont 60 000 kilogramos para aeronaves que than 60 000 kilogrammes. 10 poids est supbrieur h 80 000 kilo- pesen d s de 60 000 kilogramos.

grammcs.

2. The liability in respect of 108s of 2. La responsabilit6 en cas do mort 2. La indemnizaci6n en caso de muerte life or personal injury shall not ex- Ou do 16sions no pourra oxcbdcr 600 000 0 lesiones no exceder& de 600 000 fran- ceed 600 000 francs per person killed francs par pcrsonne tube ou 1Esbe. cos por persona fallecida o lesionada. or injured.

3. u Weight s means the maximum 3. Pnr e poids ,I il h u t ontendre le 3. cr Peso r significa el peso weight of the aircraft authorised by the poids maximum do l'adronoi nutoris4 de la aeronave avtorizado para el des- certificate of airworthiness for take- au d6collago par lo certificnt de navi- pegue por el certificado de navega- off, excluding the effect of lifting gas gahilil6, non compris les en'ets du gaz bilidad, excluyendo el efecto del gas when used. do gonflage s'il y a lieu. mcensional, cumdo se we.

4. The sums mentioned in francs in this Artiole refer to a currency unit oonsisting of 65 1/, nlilligrammev of gold of millesimal finelless 1100. These sums may be oonvertcd into national ourren- cies in round figures. Conversion of the sums into national currencies other than gold shall, in caso of judicial pro- oeedings, be made according to the gold value of such currencies a t the date of the judgment, or, in cases covered by Article 14, a t the date of the allocation.

4. Les somrnes incliqudes on francs dans le l>rdsuilt Article sont consid6rdes comrnc sc rapporttant h une unit4 mon6- taire constitoCe par 65 % milligrammes d'or nu titro cle 000 millibmes de An. Ces sonlnies peuvcnt Btre converties dans chaquc monnaio nationale en chifl'res ronds. La conversion do ees somines en rnounaies nationales autres que la monuaic-or s'effectuera, s'il y a eu uno instance judiciaire, suivant la valeur-or de ces monnaies b la date du jugcment on, dans le cas prevu B 1'Ar- tick 14, B la date do la r6partition.

4. Las s u m s en francos mencionadas en este articulo se refieren a m a unidad de moneda comistente en OG 1/, /,- gramos de oro con ley de 900 milbsi- mas. Podrhn ser convertidas en moneda nacional en nlimeros redondoe. Esta conversi6n, en moneda nacional distinta do la moneda-oro, se efeotwra, si hay procedimiento judicial, con SU-

jeci6n a1 valor-oro de dicha moneda nacional en L fecha de b sentencia 0,

en el caso del articulo 14, en b fecha de la distribuci6n.


1. If tho person who suffers damage proves that it was caused by a dcli- berate act or omidon of the operator, his servants or agents, done wit11 intent to cause tlal~iago, the liability of tho 01pcr;~tor elldl be unlimited ; provided thd i l l tho caso of such m t or omitision of m r h servant or agent,

I. Si la pcrsonuo qui subit lo dom- nmgc prouve quo le dommage a 6t6 caw6 par un acto ou une omission d6li- bbrCe de l'exploitant ou du sea pr0pos6s, avcc l'intention de provoquer un dommage, lo rcsponsabilit6 de l'exploitant est illimitbe, pourvuque, dansle oas dlun acte ou d'une omission dOlibOr6e de

1. Si la persona quo sufro los daflos pmeba que Bstos fuoron causados por una acci6u u omisi6n deliberuda del operador o sus dependientes, realizado con intenci6n de causar daflos, La responsabilidad del operador sera iLi- mitada, a condici6n de qua, en el caso de action u omisi6n de 10s dependientes,

Document no X

i t is also proved t~li;J lro w:16 nc*ling ~ I + o & , il mil 4g:1,1~1110111 prol1v6 (1110 in the conrsc of his ~~lilpl~ylllcllt illid lcs pl6ponOs o u t :rgi all cow8 (lo l'excr- within the scope of his authority. cicbc! dc Ieurs fo11(4ions e t dams les

limitcs do Icnrs attributions.

a. If a person mongfully takos and 2. Lorsqulnno pursonne n'ampare d'un makes nso of a n aircraft without the sbroncf dlune manidre illicito ot l1u- consent of tho porson entitled to use tilise sans le consentement do la it, his liability shall be unlimited. porsonne qui o lo droit do l'utiliser, sa

responsnbilit6 est illirnit0e.

Article 13 Article 13

1. Whenever, under the provisions of Article 3 or Article 4, two or more persons are liable for damage, or a registered owner who was not the ope+ ator is made liable as such as provided in paragraph 3 of Article 2, the persons who suffer damage shall not be entitled to total oompcnsation gretak- er than the highest indemnity which may be awarded undcr the provisions of this Convention against any one of the persons liable.

2. When the provisions of Article 7 are applicable, the person who suffers the damage shall be entitled to be compensated up to the aggregate of the limits applicahlo with respect to each of the aircraft involved, but no operator shall be liable for a sum in excess of the limit applicable to his aircraft unless his liability is unlimited uuder the terms of Article 12.

1. Lorsque, on vcrtu des dispositions dcs Articlos 3 ou 4, plusicurs peraonnea sont rcsponsnblcs d'un dommage, ou lorsque le proyridtaire inscrit au registre d'immatriculation qui n'htait p a l'ex- ploitont est rcndu rcsponsable comme tel selon les diepositions du paragraphe 3 de l'hrticle 2, lea porsonnos qui ont subi le dommagc nc peuvent pr6tendre B une indemnit6 totale supdrieure fi l'indemnitt! la pliu 4lev6e qui pcut &re, en vcrtu des dispositions de la prhsente Convention, mise h la charge do I'une quelconque des personnes rcsponsables.

2. En cas d'application des dispositions do I'Article 7, la personne qui subit le dommago peut 6tre indcmnis6e jusqu'h concurrence tlu montant cumuld des plafonds d7indemnit6 corrcspondant ti

chscun des adronefs en question, mlzis aucun cxploitant n'est rctlponssble pour une somme sup6rienro B la limite ap- plicablo h son ahonof, B moina quo sa ror;poritzhlit6 no soit illiluitc!e aux termes de 1'Articlc 18.


If the total amount of the claims esta- Si lo montant t)otal den indemnitea blitthed cxceods tho limit of liability flxbes excede la lilnite do rcsponsabilit6 applicahlo under the provisions of this app]icab]o en vertu dispositions Convention, the following rules shall de 1s prbsente Convention, lea rkgles apply, taking into account the provis- auivantes sont appliqu6es, en tenant ions of paragraph 2 of Article 31 : compte dcs dispositions du paragraphe

2 do I'Article 11 :

(u) If the claims are exclusively (a ) Si les indemnit6 concernent in respcct of loss of life or personal soit uniquement des pertes de vie hu- injury or exclusively in respect of dam- maine ou des ldsions, soit uniquement age to property, such claims ~h811 dcs dommages causds aux biens, c h s be rcduccd in proportion to their rcspec- font l'objet d'uno rCduction propor- tive amounts. tionnclle A lcur montant respectif.

(b) If tho chims :Ire bot,h in respect (b) Si les indemnitd~ concerncnt 8, 1s of l o ~ s of life or p e r ~ o n ~ l injury and in fois dcs pertes de vie humaine ou des respcct of damngo to property, one l6sions e t iles dommages aux biclls, half of the total sum ~istributsble hall la moitid du monhnt de la somme h be appropri:~tccl preferentially to meet ilist,ribpc?r esb affect& par priorit6 h la claims iri r cq~rc t of l o ~ a of life nnd rbparation des pertcs do vio humaine et person:rl injury nritl, if inunffiricnt, slirtll dcs ICsions et, cn cns d'in~ufisance, r6-

Re priichc tambidn quo actuaban en cl cjercicio cle siis funciones y dentro dc 10s limites dc sus atribuciones.

2. Si una persona se apodera ilicita- mcnte do una aeronave y la us& in el consontimiento de la persona que ten@ derecho a hacero, su responsabilidad serh ilimitada.

Articulo 13

1. Cuando, de acuerdo con lo previsto en 10s articulos 3 y 4, dos o m4s personas seen responsables de un dano, o en el caso de un propietario inacrito que sin ser el operador see considerado reaponsable en virtud de lo dispuesto en el p4rrafo 3 del articulo 2, las personas que sufran el dano no tendrhn derecho a una indenmhacibn total superior a la maxima quo, en virtud de la8 disposiciones de este Convenio, pudiera s&alal.se contra una oualquicm de las personas responsables.

2. En 10s casos previstos en el articulo 7, la persona que sufra 10s danos tendrh derecho a ser indemnizada hasta la suma do 10s limites correspondientes a cada una de las aeronaves en cuesti6n, pero n i n g h operador serA responsable por una sum8 que exeeda de 10s limites aplicables a 8 s aeronave, a menos que su responsabilidad sea ilimitada segkn el articulo 12.

Articulo 14

Si el importe de las indemnizacionea fljadas exccde del limite de responen- bilidad aplicable s e g h la8 disposiciones de este Couvenio, se observarh la8 siguientes reglas, teniendo en cuenta lo previsto en el phrrafo 2 del articu. lo 11 :

(a ) Si lss indemnizaciones se roAe- ren solamento a1 caso de muerte o lesiones, o solnmente a daflos en 10s bienes, scrBn rcducidas en proporci6n a sus importos respectivos.

(b ) 6i las indemnizaciones se refieren tanto a muerte o lesiones como a danos a 10s bicnes, la mitad de la cantidad a distrihuir se destinar4 preferen- tcmente a cnbrir las indernnizaciones por puerte y lcsioncs, y dc ser insuil- ciente dirha cmtidad. sc distribuirh

Ire distributeil proportionately lwt~r-wn the claims concernctl. Thh rrmnintlcr of tho total sum cliat,ributal>lo shall bo distributed proportionately among tho claims in rcspcct of damago to propcrty and Lhe portion not already covered of the claims in respcct of loae of life and per~onal in jury.

~~nrtie])roporlio~~noll~~mc~~t su molltant propor~~io~~:~ltncntc. cntrc 10s cr&lil,,,, ~eapectif dos dommsgt~sdor~t il s'agit. Lo dcl C~LRO. El remanento de In cantidad soldo do la sommo 11 dist,ribucr est r@m- tots1 a diutribuir se prorratearh cntrc t i proportionnellcmont lour montltnf b s indcmnizaciones relativas a dnnos entre lcs indomuitds concornant lcs dom- a 10s biones y la pmte nocuhierta de la8 mnges motdriels ct, tl'il y a licu, la partie domh indemnizaciones. non r(!glBo tlce inclcmuitbn concornant leu ycrtes do vio humairie ct lee 16sions.

CHAPTXB 111 USAPJTRP I11 OAPITULO IIT &ECURI!PY FOR OPERATOR'S SURETES DESTINEES, OARANTUB

LIABILITY A COUVRIR LA RESPONSABILITB DE RESPONWBILIDAD DB L'EXPLOITANT DEL OPERADOR

Article 15

1. Auy Contracting State may require that the operator of an aircraft registered in another Contraoting State rhall be insured in respect of his liability for damage sustained in its territory for which a right to compensation exists under Article 1 by means of insurance up to the iimifs applicable according to the provisions of Article 31.

2. (a) The insurance shall be accepted as satkfactory if i t conforms to the provisions of this Convention and hae been effectcil by rcn insurer authoriaed to etTect such inaurancc uucler the laws of tho Sti~to where the aircraft is registered or of tho State where tho insurer bas hin residence or principal place of business, and whose financial responsibility htbs boon verified by either of those States.

( b i If insoranee llw been rcquircd . by any State under paragraph 1 of this

Article, and a final jodgmenC ill Chat &ate is not sstisficd by paylrlulit in the currency of t,h:~t Statc, m y Contrsct- ing 8t:ble I I I : L ~ ~ C ~ I I S O lo wccyt the insurer s s finunciirlly rcspol~nible until such payment, if tlvi~tirnded, has been madr.

4. In~te&d of irlfiurnncc, iUly of the following stw~rition shall bo deemcd ~nt~isfoctary if the security conforms to Article 17 :

( 0 ) a caqh tlepn~it in s depository mninteincd by the Contracting State

Article 15

1. Tout Etat contractant pout exiger qno la responssbilit0 dc I'oxploitant d'un a6ronef immatricult5 dens un autre Etat contractant soit ansuree ia concnr- rence des limites de responsabilite applicsbles aux termes de 1'Article 11 $our lo8 dommages donnant lieu & reparation eux tormes de 19Article premier et pouvant surveilir sur son territoire.

2. (a) L'assuranco doit Btre consid6rh commo satisfaisanto lorsqu'cllc a kt6 contructdo uux conditions de la prbseate Couvention :bnpr&s d'un assurcur auto- ? i d b cct ofiet, conformbment aux lois do l'l3tat d'imrnabriculetion de l'ahronef 011 tlu l'lCtnt oh 1':~snurour a 8011 domicile ou son principal Btsbli~ticmcnt, e t dont la ~01v:~bilit6 a bt6 vbrifibe par l'un ou l'nutrc flc cos Etibts.

fb) Ilorsqu'unc assurance a Btt5 cxigfo par un Etnt conformfment au pe11tgr;bphe 1 du prdscnt Article, e t quo lej in([cmnitda :~llou4os par un jugcment dbli~iil i f rcndu dms cct. S t a t n'ont pas 61 ts p.~yCcs dans la ~nonnnio tle cat Etat, 1[11:~1grd que la domando cn ait 6th faite, tout Etibt contractant pcbut refuser de considdrer 17:~etiureur corilme ~olvablo jusq~i'& cc quo lo paioment ;bit dt6 c?ll'cct uh.

4. A 121 p l : ~ do 17nssurance, I'nnt! des sfireths bnnmc'rdce ci-aprh scr:b con- sitiCrCe conlme satisfaisanto si cllo est contititildc conformdrncnt A I'Articlo 17 :

( 0 ) un dhl)Dt, en especetl ATecti~d dnns uiio caistic puhliquc d'un Etnt

Articulo 15

1. Los Estados Contratantea pueden exigir que el operador de uns rteronave mtriculada en otro Estado Oontmtante estt5 asegurado con respecto a nu respun- srtbilidad por 10s dafios reparables scan el artfcnlo 1, que se causen en el territorio de dichos Estados, hasta 10s limites que corresponden segdn el articulo 11.

2. (a) El seguro ser4 considerado como sstisfactorio ai se conforms a las diopo. siciones del presente Convenio y ha sido oontratado con un asegurador autori- cado a tal efecto conforme a la8 leyea del Estado de matricula de la seronave o en el que el ssegurador tengrt, su domi- eilio o la sedo principal de sue negocios, y cuya solvencia haya sido comprobada por el Estado respective.

(b) Si en el Estado quo exija un seguro conforme a1 pBrrafo 1 de este articulo so ha dictado una sentencia definitiva y no se ha complido mediante pago en la moncda de dicho pafs, lo6 Estados contratantort pueden negarse s aceptar como solvente a1 asegurador hash quo el menoionado pago, si se ha reclamado, sea cfectuado.

3. No obstante lo dispuesto en el pkrafo anterior, el Bstado tiobrevolado podrii negarso a considerar satisfactorio el seguro contratzdo por 11n aeegurador que no est6 astorizado en s n Estado Contrstante.

4. En vcz dcl scguro, cuslquicra de LB siguicntes garantifis ser& cunsiderads eatisfactori:t si cumplo 10s rcquisitoa eeflalados cn el articulo 17 :

(a) un dcp6sito on cfcctfvo cons- t,itfuido en una cajs pdblich o cn un

where the airoraft la registered or with s bank authorhied to act as a depository by that State ;

(b) a guarantee given by a bank authorised to do no by the Oontracthg Htate where the aircraft is registered, and wbose flnencial responsibility has been verifbd by that Btate;

(o) a guarantee given by the Chntracthg State where the aircraft is mgietered, if that State undertakes that i t will not claim immunity from suit in respect of that guarantee.

6. Subjeot to parqraph 6 of this Article, the Btate overflown may also require that the aircraft shall carry a oertificate issued by the insurer certifying that insurance has been effected in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, and specifying the person or pcrsons whose liability is secured thereby, together with a cartificate or endorsement issued by the appropriate authority in tho State where the aircraft is registored or in the State whcre thc insurer haa his residence or principal pbco of busincss certifying tho financial rcsponsibility of the insurer. If othcr security is furnished in accordance with tho provisions of paragraph 4 of this Article, a certificate to that effect shall bo issued by the appropriato authority in the State where the aircraft is rcgistercd.

6. The ccrtificate rcfcrred to in paragraph 5 of this Article need not be cclrriod in tho nirornft if a ccrtilied oopy hila boon filcd with tho appropriate authority dcsignntcd by the Btate overflown or, if tho Internatio~~al Civil Aviation Orgmixotion agrecs, with that Organization, which shall furnish a copy of the ccrtiticnte to each contracting Btatc.

7. (n) Wllcrc t,he State overflown has rcfi.rounl)le grounds for doubting the Ann~icial rcapollsibility of the insurw, or of thc I):tnlr which issues a gu:bmntcc untlcr pnragraph 4 of this Articlc, that Statc may rcquest ai1dition:sl rvitlcnco of finanri:~l re#- ponsibilit y, i ~nd if any question arises as to tho :~clcqu:~cy of that cvidence tho cii~puto nflccting the Sti~tcs concerned almll, nt tho request of o m of thoso 8tatesl bo s~llmlitted to an arhi-

contractant dam lequel 11a6ronef est immatricul6, ou dam une banquc auto- ris6e & cet cffot par cot Etot contractant ;

(b) une garantie fournie par une banque antorisdo & cot effet et' dont la solvabilit6 a 6t6 v6riflh par llEtat contractant oh 19a6ronef ost imma- tricul6 ;

(0) une garantie fournie par 1'Etat contractant oh 19a6ronef est imma- tricul6, h condition que cet Etat slen- gage & ne pas se pr6valoi.r d'une immu- nit6 de juridiction en oas de litige concernnnt cette garantie.

5. Sous reserve du paragrahe 6 du present article, 1'Etat survol6 pout aussi exiger que l'a6ronef ait & son bord an certificat d6livr6 par l'assureur, attestant que l'assurance a 6t6 con- tractde conform6ment aux dispositions do la pr6sente Convention, et sp6ci- b n t la personne od les porsonnes dont la responsabilite eat garantie par cette assurance, ainsi quluu certificat 6mn- nant dc 11autorit6 qualifk do I'Etnt dlimmntriculation dc I'ndronef ou dc llEtat oil I1assnrcur a son clomicile ou son pri11cil)a1 6tablisscment, attcs1,nnt la sohrnbilit6 tle I'ass~wcur. Si unc nu'tre sflretd :a kt6 fournic conform6ment au pargr:~pho 4 du prdscnt Articlc, un ccrtificot cn ji~stifinnt doit Ctrc d6livr6 par l'nutoritb qitalifido do 1'Etat d1im- matriculntion do I'adronef.

6. Le ccrtiiimt rise au lierngrapl~c 5 dn prbscnt Article nc cloit pas ncicessai- remcnt sc tronmr i3 bord dc l'abronef, si unc copic ccrtificie conforme a 6th dPpos& auprbs clc 11autorit6 qualifi6e d6signee par 1'Etat survol6 ou, si elle en acccpte la chnrge, auprbs de l1Orga- nisation de I'Avintion rivile intcmatio- nnlc, qui en foumira clnplicatn B tous les Etats contractants.

7. ( a ) Lorsqnc 1'Etat survol6 a do sc'ricuscs raisons clc donter dc la ~olva- bilit6 de llnssurenr on d'unc banque fonnxissnnt unc gnrantie nux tcrmrs du paragraphe 4 cln 1)rCsent A~liclc, il ltcut esiger des preures complCmcntaires cle solvnbilitc'. En cns de coutestntio~l sur le ni6rite de ces preuvcs, lc din& rend opposant les Etats int(.ressfs sera Roumis, h la demande de l'un do ces Etnts, h nn tribunal arbitrnl, qui w a soit le Conscil rle 1'Orgnniuat~ion do

banco autorixado en el Estado Qontra- tante de mtricula de la aeronave ;

(b) una flanza otorgada por un banco autorizado para este fin por el Estado Contratmte de matricula de la aeronave, y cuya solvenab hayit sido comprobade por dicho Estado;

(c) una garantfa del Bstrtdo contratante donde eat6 matriculada la aero- navo, si dicho Estado se cornpromete a no invocar inmunidad en cualquier acci6n entablada con respecto a dicha garantfa.

5. Bin perjuicio de lo diapuesto en el perrafo 6 del presente articulo, el Estado sobrevolado tambi6n podri exigir que la aeronave lleve consigo un documento oxpedido por el asegurador, en el que so haga constar que el seguro ha sido contratado de acuerdo con la8 disposicionea del presente Convcnio, y so espccifiquo 1% person8 cuya responsabilidad cubro to1 scguro, acompaftado de un cortificado cxpedido por las autoridadcs compctentes del Estado do mntric,ula do la ac ronm o del Estsdo dondo ol asegurador tcnga 8u domicilio o la scdo principal de negocios, tlcclarando quo so ha comprobado la solvencia econ6mica del asegurador. Si go ha constituido otra garantia conforme a1 pBrrafo 4 del prcsente articulo, so expcdirA un certificado a1 rcspecto por la autoridad compctcntc dcl Eatado dc matricula de la aeronavc.

6. La acronave no ncccsita,rA llevar 10s documcntos a quo so rcfiore el p!~rrafo ti del prcsentc ar,rtfci~lo si se ha cntrcgado una copia lcgalizada a la autoridad compctente dcsignada por el Estado sobrevolado o a la 0rgamnizaci6n do1 Aviacibn Civil Intcrnacionel, si csta acepta cute comctido; en cuyo caso enviare un cluplicado a 10s Estados contrat nntcs.

7. (a) Si el Estado sobrcvolado tuviera rnzoncs fundadas para dudar do la solvcncia dcl nscgurador, o dcl banco quc hnye prcatado una flanza conformo a1 p6rra.fo 4 del prcscnto nr- ticulo, pucdo cxigir prucbas adicio- n a l c ~ do La1 solvencia y, si surgo alguna cucstibn respccto a1 valor do d ich~s prucbas, so sometcrti la control-crfiia, o poticicin do uno do loa Estaclos, a un tribunal nrbitml, que sere ol Conscjo do In Orgnnizncibn dc A~*iacibn C i ~ i l

tral tribuwl which Rh:&ll be either tho Council of the Internatioml Civil Aviation Organization or a porson or body mutually agreed by the parties.

(b) Until this tribunal has given its decision the insurance or guarantee ahaU be considered provisionally valid by the State overflown. 8. Any requirements imposed in nc- cordanco wit,h this Articlo hall be notiilea to tho Secrctary Conera1 of the International Civil Aviation Organi- mtion who shall inform each contmcting State thereof. 9. For the purpose of this Article, the torm i t insnrer )I includes a group of insurers, and for the purpose of paragraph 5 of this Article, the phrase a appropriate authority in a S ta t , o

includes the appropriate authority in the highest political subdivision thereof which regulates the conduct of basines by tho insurer.

Article 16

1. The insurer or other person yrovi- ding secnrity required under Article 15 for the liability of the operator may, in addition to tho defences available to tho operator, and tho defence of rorgery, set up only tho following defenccs ngainet claims based on tho application of this Convention :

(a) that the damwe occurred after tho security crascd to be effective. Howover, if tho secnrity oxpires during a flight, it shall bcb continued in force until tho next Inniling ~pecitlcd in the flight plan, but no lougcr than twenty- four hours ; and if tho ~ecurity 'ceases to bo effective for any reason other thau the expir~tion of its torm, or e chango of uporator, i t sh:hil btl contirt uocl unbil fiftwn days af6w ~lotificaCion to the appropriitto antbority of the Stato which certdfics the Annncial responsibilily Of the insurer or tho guur- antor that tho security hm ceased to be offoctivo, or until cfl'cctivo withdrawaJ of tho certificate of the insurer or the eertificstu of guarantee if such a certif- icato has bcen required under paragraph 6 of Article 16pl~ichevar ie the enslior;

(b) that the damage occurred outside the tcrritorir~l limiks providad for by tho security, unles~ flight outside of such limits was caused by force mtajeure, assistance justified by the circumstances, or an error in piloting, oporation or navigation.

l'hviation civile internationnle, soit un tribunal arbitral constitut5 d'accord entre les Etats intGrctls6s.

(b) L'assuranco ou la garantio est provisoirement oonsicl6rde commo valable par l'Etat survo16 tant que ce tribunal n'a pas statu6. 8. Les sQret6s exigdos on vertu du pr6scnt article doivcnt &re notiMes au Secrbtaire g6n6ral do 1'Organisation de 1'Aviation civile internationale, q~l i en informars chaque Btat contractant.

9. Aux fins du pr4sent Articlo, le terme a assurcur s s'applique Ogalement B un groupo d'assureurs, e t aux fins du paragraph G du present Artiole, l'expression cc autorit6 qualifl8e d'un Ets t P oomprend l'autorit6 qurtlifi6e de la plus haute subdivision politique de cet Etat chargbe do contr6ler l'activit6 de 1'8s- sureur.

Article 16

I. L'assurcur ou toute autre personne garantissant, conform6ment 1'Ar- tick 15, la responsabilit6 do l'exploitant ne peut opposer aux demandee d'indcmnit6 fond& sur la pr6aento Oonvention, outrc lcs inJycns do d6- fonso appartcmnt B l'cxploitant et ceux fond6s snr une falsification de ilocurncnte, quo lcs moycns do cl6fense ci-:rprDs :

(a) lo donimage cst survenu aprbs que la sQrct6 a ccss6 d'btrc en vigueur. Toutcfois, tli la garantic expiro pendant la durCo du voyago elle est prolongOe jusqu'au prcmier atterrissage rrp6cifi6 dens 16 plan do vol, mais pas su delh de vingt-quatre heures. Si la garantie cesse d'8tre valable pour uno autre raison que 1'6chbnce du terme ou un obngement d'exploitant, oUo sera con- tinu& pendant quinze jours h compter de la notilicetion par :l'assureur ou le gurant B, l'autorit6 qualifieo qui s Bmis le rertifiwt, qut, la slire1;6 a cesse d'6tre valable ou jusqu'au retrait effectif du certificat de l'assureur ou du certificat de garantie exig6 aux termes du paragraphe 6 do 1'Article 15, au css oh ce retrait serait intervenu avant l'expiration du d6lai de quinze joure ;

( b ) le dommage est survenu en dohors des lh i tes territoriales pr6vues par la sfiret6, B moins que le vol en dehors de ces limites n'ait eu pour cause la force majeure, l'assistance justifihe pat lee circonstances, ou une faute de pilotage, de oonduito ou de navigation.

Internacional o cualquier otro ded- gnado por acuerdo de la8 partes.

(b) Hasts que dioho tribunal emits su fallo, el seguro o Is garantfa tendrlSn validez provisional en el Estado sobrevolado. 8. Uualquier requisite impuesto de acuerdo con el presente Articulo, sorb notificado a1 Secretsrio General do la Organizaci6n de la Aviwi6n Oivil Inter- nacioml, quien lo comunicar4 s lo8 Fstados contratantes.

9. A 10s efectos de este articnlo, el tbrmino ct asegurador u comprende un grupo do aseguradores y, a 10s ~ B B

dcl p4rrafo 6 de este srticulo, la expre- si6n a autoriilades competentes de qn Bstado a incluye a las autoridades corree- spondientes en la subdivisi6n politice de jerarquia superior de tal Estado, yue roglamcnten b s actividades del seguso.

Articulo 16 1. El asegurador y quienes garantiam, conforme a1 articulo 15, la responsabilidad del operador, solamente poWn oponer, a las roclamaciones basadae en la aplicaci6n do cste Convenio, ademb de lm excepciones que carrespondan al operador, y la clo falsedad, la8 aiguientee excepciones :

(a) qne el dam ha ocurrido 488- pu6s quo el segnro o la garantia han dejado de estar en vigor. Sin embargo, si sn plaso expira durante un vuelo, subeistirdn hasta el primer ater- rizaje incluido en el plan de vuelo, pcro sin exceder de veinticuatro horn ; si dojm do estar en vigor por m a raz6n distinta de la expiraci6n del plazo por el que fueron constituidas o cambio del operador, subsistifin hrtsfa, quince dlss despu6s de b notificacibn a la autoridsd do1 Zstado que certific6 la solvencb &d aseyrador quo la garantis ha &@do de surtir efecto o haste que ae retire 4 certificscto que se haya en virtud de lo dispuesto en el phrrafo 6 del articulo 15, si elle tiene lugar antes do que transcurran loe quinos dias mencionados :

( b ) qne el daflo ha oourrfdo f u a de loe lfmitee territoriales previstos en el segnro o la gamntf, salvo me el melo fuera de tales lfmitea se deba r fuerm mayor, asistencia juet-, o a una falta do piiotaje, de conclnacfh

2. Tho Stnto which hag issucd or endorsed a cortificata pursumt to paragraph 5 of Articlo 18 shall notify the termination or ccssatiou, olherwisu than by tho orpiration of its tclm, of the insurmco or olhor sccurit#y to the interested conlracting Stntcs as soon as possiblo.

3. L\!licr.e ti ocrtilicute ol' ius~lrancc or other eccurit.y is rwluiretl under pura- graph 5 of A r t i i h I 5 and, the opcriitor ie chnngccl tluring ilia pcv~ioci of the validity of tho stwritp, t.l)c! scvurity ahall :~pl)ly to the. 1iubilit.y 1111dc-r this Convetition of tlict nc:w opc!rittor, ~lnlcw he is already coverccl by othor irlsurnncc! or security or is an urilawful user, but not beyond fifteei~ clays from the time when the insurer or guarantor notifies tlic appropriate authority of the State where tho certificate wns issued that the security has become ineffective or until the effective withdrawal of the certificate of the insurer if euch a certificate has 1)ccn required under paragraph 5 o f Article 15, whichever is the xliorter period.

4. The cont,inuation in force of tho security under thc provisions of paragraph 1 of this Articlc shdl apply only for the bcncfit of the person suffc- ring damage.

6. Witho~lt prejudice to any right of dircct action which he may have under the law governing tjho con tract of insurance or parantoo, the person suffering donlago may bring a direct action against tho insurer or guarantor only in thc following cases :

(u) jvhcrc bile sccurit,y is conti- nucd in force undcr the provisions of paragraph 1 (u) ant1 (b) of this Article ;

(b) bho bankruptcy of the operator.

6 . Excepting tho defonccs spccificd in paragmph 1 of tliis: Articlc, tho insurer or ot,l~er p w o u providing security may not, with rcspcct to dircct actions hrollght by tllc prrson sl\flcring &miago basctl 11po11 npplic~nt ion of tliis Conven- tion, nviiil hilusclf of nny glonncls of n~tllity or any right of rctroact ive cnn- ccl1:1t loll.

2. Ic'Eht qui n dblivr6 un ccrtificat conformdmcnt au paragmpho 5 do llArticlo 15 doit, lorsque l'nssurnnco ou la garantic a ccssb d'C.tlu cnviguour pour d'autrcs raisons qhc 1'dchOnnco clu tcrmo, on donnor notification sussi- t8t quo possiblo aux Etsts contrnctants intbressbs.

3. Lorsqu'un ccrtificat d'essurance ou d'uno autro sGroM est cxig6 aux toilnos du yaxagx-qhc 5 do llArticlo 15, ct qu'il y :I eu change~~~cnt d'cxploitant pendant la dur6e do la validit6 dc la sGret6, celle-ci s'appliquo h la rcsponsabilit6 du nouvcl cxploitant conformdmcnt euu dispositions do la yr6bente Conven- tion, h moins quc la responsabilit6 do celui-ci ne soit d6jh garmtio par une autrc sfiret6 ou quo cct cxploitant nc soit un usager ill6gitimc. Toutcfois, cettc prolongation do validit6 nc s16- tendra pas an-deb do quinzo jours b compter du moment oh l'assureur ou lo garant notifie b 11autorit6 qualitiCe de llEtat qui a d6livrO le ccrtificat quo la siiret6 a ccss6 d16tre valable, ou, en cas de retrait eftectif du ccrtificat do l'assureur via6 au paragraphc 5 de l'Articlc 15, au dclh du jour dc ce retrait, s'il intcrvient avant l'cxpinbtion du d6l:bi do quinzc jouls.

4. La prolongation dc. validit0 tle la siirctb prbvuc par lcs dispositions du paragraphe 1 tlu pr6scut Articlo ne s'appliquo qn'cn fnvcur de la pcrsonne qui a subi le dommagu.

5. Sans pr6jndicc do l'action directe qu'ello peut euerocr on vertu do la 16gis- lation applicable au eontrat d'assu- ronce ou de garantie, 1s personne qui a subi Ic dommage no pcut intenter une action directe contre l'assureur ou le garant que dens les cas suivants :

(a) quand la validit6 de la sGret6 est prolong&, suivant les dispositions du per~graphc 1 (a) ct (b) du prbent Ar tiele ;

(6) quand l'exploitant est d6clar6 en btJ do fnillitc.

6. Ell dehors dcs moycns de defense spBcifi6s au paragraph0 1 du present Article, l'nssureur ou toute autro por- sonno garantissant la responsabilit6 do l'euploitnnt no peut, en cas dl:tction directe intent& en application do la pr6acntc Convention par la pcrsoune qui a subi 10 dommge, so pr6valoir d'auwno cnusc do nullit6 ni d'uno Titcultc! de r6siliation rbtroactiw-.

2. Si el scguro o la garantis cesan de ustar on vigor pol. causa distinta de kt cxpiraci6n dcl plazo, el Estndo quo oxpida 01 certificado previsto en el phrrafo 5 del articulo 18 lo notificar8, t an pronto como soa posible, a 10s demhs Estados Contratantcs .

3. Cuando so cxigrt un certificado do seguro o gerantk, do acucrdo con 01 pBrrafo 5 dcl articulo 15, y cnmbie 1s pcrsona do1 opcrador durnnto el periodo de validcz del mguro o garantk, estos cubr i rh la rcsponsabili&d on quo incurra, do acucrdo con cl prcscnto Convonio, 01 nuovo operador, salvo que sea un usuario ilegitimo o ya cst6 cubiorto por otro scguro o garantia, per0 no por m8s do quince dias partir dc la fochs on quo el asegulador o fiador notifique a la autoridad quo expidi6 el ccrtificado quo tal scguro o garantia ha dcjado dc aurtir efecto o hasta que so rotiw el ccrtificado, ei cllo tiene lugar antes de quo vonza dicho p1:~zo.

4. La st~bsistencia dcl seguro o grtran- ti8 con arrcglo a1 phrrafo 1 de eato articulo, surtirh cfcctos solameutc cn beneficio de la persona que sufra 108 dailos.

5. Sin perjuicio de la acci6n quo directamente pucda ejercitar en virtud de la ley aplicable a1 contrato de scguro o de garantis, el tcrcero perjudicado pucdo intentar la acci6n directamente contra el asegurador o quien hays pres- tado la garantia solamente en lo8 siguicntes casos :

( a ) Cyando el seguro o garantia continhe en vigor con sujeei6n a lo dispuesto en el psrrafo 1 ( a ) y (b) de e ~ t e articulo ;

(b) quiebra del operador.

6. En caso de acci6n directe intenteda por la persona que sufra lo6 dafios, o! asc- gurador, o quien preste In garantia, oo podrh, aparto de las excepcioncs prc- vistas en el phrrafo 1 dcl prownte arliculo, prevalerse do ninguna causa do nulidad o de rescisi6n rctr0:ictiva.

7. Tho provisions of this Artido sh:dl not projudicc tho ql~cstion wlictlm tho insilrcr or gwnmntor lins n light of recourse against any otllur portion.

7. L ~ H d i s ~ o s i ~ i o ~ l c ~ do1 presonto articulo no prejiwgan si el ascgqroclor o el fiailor ticno dorccho o ropctir wntrrb otro persona.


1. I f sccurity is f11rnis1ic.d ill ncoordnncc with paragraph 4 of Article 16, it shall bo specifically and pr~fe~ontinlly assigned to psymcnt of cli~ilns unctcr the provisions of this Convention.

1. Si 11110 nard6 cat fournic conform6- 1ilol~t AU ~ ~ ~ ' t ~ g r o p l l ~ 4 do llArtdclc 15, cllo cloit Dtro offccldo sp6cialemont ot par prbf6rcnco su p:~icmcnt dcs indcm- niids tincs cn vcrtu dc& i\ispositions do la prPscnto Convention.

1. La ghruntia prcstada on la forma prcvista on el pnrrafo 4 do1 articulo 15, dobcrs cstar afoctnda espccial y prefe- rcntcmcnt a1 pego do las indcmniza- cionce en virtud do la dispoeiciones del prcscnte Convenio.

a. En ol oaso de un operador de unasola auronavo, la garantia.ser6 suflcicnte si su importe cs igual a1 limite aplicable oon- forme a bfl disposicionesdel artfculo 11. 8i se trata de un operador de variae aeronaves, ol importe do la garantfa serh @wl, por lo menos, a la asma de 10s lirnites aplicables a las dos aeronaves sujetas a 10s limites m8s elevados.

2. The security s b l l be deomed eufflciont if, in the case of an operator of one aircraft, i t ie for a11 amount eqwl to tho limit applicable according t o tho provisions of Article 11, and in the caso of a n operator of several aircraft, if i t is for an amount not lose t h n tho aggrognte of tho limit$ of liability upplicoblo to tho two aircraft subject to the higheet limits.

3. La fiilrctt6 cat consid6rbe conlme sufisante si, dans lo cas d'un cxploi- t:~ut cl'un scul adroncf, clle est de montant Ogizl i la limite applicable con- formt5mcnt aux dispositions do 1'Ar- ticle 11 ct, dans le cas d'un exploitant do plusieurs abronefs, si olio est do montant au moins Bgal au total des limites do rosponsabilit6 applicable~ aux deux ebrollofs auxquols s'appliqaent les limitcs les plus Ole- vdos.

3. As soon as notice of a cbim has been given to tho operator, the amount or tho security shall be increased up to a total sum equivalent to the aggregateof:

3. DBs qu'une domando d9indomnitB a Bt6 notiAQ h l'cxploit~nt, la sarctd dcvrn Otre portbe h un montant Bgal au totnl dcs dcux sonimos ci-aprbs:

3. Tan pronto como so notifique a1 opcrador una indemnizaci611, la garantia so numcntarB hasta una mma total oquivalente :

(a) tho amount of tho security then rcquircd by paragraph 2 of thie Axticlo, and

la ) lo montant de In s0rctB oxi- giblo aux tcrmes du pnragrapho 2 du prdscnt Articlo, ct

(b) lo moritnnt do La dcmande, pour aut,nnL clue ccllu-ci nc d6passe ~ : L Y liz limite CLU rwp011~0biiit4 applicable.

Le suppldmont do si~rotd dcvra (itre rnaintc~iu jnsqu'au momcnt oh In de- mando aura PtA r6gldc on dblinitivo- mentt rejothe.

(a) el importe de la garantla re- querida por el pArrafo 2 do1 prescnte articulo, y

(b) tho amount of the claim not exceeding the applicable limit of liability.

This increased security shall be maintained until evmy daim has boon disposed of.

( b ) a1 emporte de la reclamaoi6n, sin que se exceda el limite de responaa- hilidad aplicable.

1,s garnntia a d aumcntada so man- tondr4 b a t s que la reclmmnci6n sea resuclta.

Artfculo 18 Article 18

Any sums due to nn operator from an insurer shall bo cxcnq)t from seizure and execution by creditortf of the opemtor until claim of third parties \iuc\cr this Convention havo been eatisfied.

Article 18

Ilas cantidades adendfdas rcl ope- dor por el asegurrtdor qucdan exontas 40 embargo y bjecuci611 por 10s acree- dores rlcl operador, hasta quo hayan hido mtisfechas lss reclamacionea do la personas que sufran 10s dafi08 con sujecibn n cste Convenio.

Toutc sonlmu dim b nn oxploitant par un nssureur no pourra f ~ i r e I'objet d'unc nnivic ou d'11no niosaro d'exdcu- tion de ia part tles cr4anciers do I'exploitant, taut qw: l a . crbanccs des hiorb ltk& aux termcs de la prdscntu Oon~vw~Lion u'il oront pas 6th Ctcinlcs.

(1~~rrur .o I V

PROCEDIMIENTO Y PRE80RTl'CION DB ACOIONES

RULE0 OF PICOCEDURE AN1) TJMITATION OB AOTIOWS

Article 19 Articlo 19 Articulo 19

If a clainubnt l1m not brought an actiolt to ttrrforco hi8 claim or If notification of such claim hi~e not been givcn to tho operator witliin a ycrioQ of trix mnoiithe froin the date of tho incidcnt

8i cn (21 plnzo dc sois mnsca n contar 4lc 1 : ~ frclm dnl :~contecirnit~nto quo origin6 cl tlafio, cl dcinnntlnnto rio hn cntiblntlo ILL ;1cci6n jutlfr,l:d o no 11n Iwcho sohcr nu rrclnmuci6n nl opurcidor,

Si b pereonno qui s subi le dommge n's pas intcnt6 uno action en dparation contro l'uxploitant ou ~i cllu nc lui a pas notifld so dcrnrtntle d'indcmnit6 dans un dhlai de six rnois & cornpt,cr du

which mve rise to tho damage, tho jour oil cst survenu lo h i t qui a produit 'cldmmt shall only bo ontitlcd to com- lo dommago, lo demandour n'a droit B peneation out of tho amount for which indoinnit6 quo sur la parl non distribulo the operator remains liablo after all do l'ind~wnit6 dont l'oxgloitant yesto c1,&ns made within tLit period have tom, aprbs complot r8glcmc11t do tou- been met in fnll. tc3 108 deinaudos pr6sontlcs au coum

dutiit d6lai.


1. Actions undcr tho provisions of this Oonvention may be brought only before the courts of the Contracting State where tho damage occurred. Never- theless, by agreement hctwocn any one or more claimants and any om or more defendants, such claimants may tako action before tho courts of any other Contracting Btato, but no such proceeilings shall have tho effect of prejudicing in any way the rights 01 persons who bring actions in the Btate whore the damago occurrod. The parties may also agree to submit disputes to arbitration in any Contracting Btate.

2. &oh Contracting Stato shall W e all nocossary measures to enswe that the dofendant and all other parties interestcdaro notilied of any proceedings concerning thcm and havo a fair and adequate opportunity to defend their interestg. 3. Each Contracting Stato shall so far as possible ens1\ro that 2111 action8 arising from s singlo incillont m d brocght in accorcbnco with paragraph 1 of this Articlo aro con~olidated for dieposd in o single proceeding before the same court.

4. Wherct any f w l jndgment, including a j~ldgment by default, is pronounced by e court cornpotent iu conformity with this Convention, on which execu- tiion can bo issl~od according to the procedural law of that court, the judgment s h l l bo cdorcesble upon compliance with the formalitic~ prescribed by tho LWR of the (:ontracting State, or of any towi(ory', &ate or province thereof, wllcrc execution i~ apclied for:

1. Lca actions judiciaircs exorcfcs en verlu d.0~ ditlpositions cla la prbsonte Convention sont portim &ant b e tribunnux de PBtat contractant oh ost survcnu lo dommago. Nhnmoina, par entente ontre un ou plusiours doman- dews ot un ou plusieurs dOfendour8, lo8 actions pouvent 8tre portbe devant los tribunnux de tout autre Btat contractant, sans quo ma procddures puis- sent avoir d'offot Q 1'6gard des droittl dea personnee qui intentcnt w e action dam 1'Etat oh lo dornmago est survenu. Les partios pouvent aussi sournettre leur diff6rond & l'arbitrago dans l'un quelconque des Etats contrmt0,nts.

2. Uhaque Etat contract,ant prondra toutcs mcsures n6cesskres pour quo la procbdure soit notifib eu ddefondonr ot & toutcs eutros parties intOressQs et que ceux-ci puiseent dbfendro leurs int613ta dam dos conditions adbquatos et Oquitables.

3. Chaque Etat contractant, dans la mesuro du possible, fcra en sorto qu'un soul tribunal statue au murs d'un seul procba sur toutes lea aotions vis6ee au psragrapho 1 du prdesent kt iclo et ae rapport.ant b un mOmo 6v6nemont.

4. Loraqu'un jugement d6flnitif est pro- nonc6 m6me par d6faut par le tribunal comp6tont en conformite dea dispositions do la pr6eente Oonvention ot que l'ex6cutiou pout en Btre dommdee dans 10s formes pr6vues par la loi do oe tribunal, cu jugement, aprh accomplis- eomont des formalit& prescrites par la loi de 1'Btat contractant ou do, tout territoire, Etat ou province faisant partie dudit Etat contractant dans lequel l'ex6cution est demand&, ost exBcutoira :

(u) in tthc Contmcting 8ti~tc where (u) soit dam 1'Etat contreotant o~ tho judgment debtor h n ~ his rosidcnce la partie qui eucoombe a son domicue or principal placo of businesn Or, ou son eibge prinoipal ;

( b ) i f tho a.ssets avt~il:~l)lu in t h t (b) soit dans tout autre Etat con- Eltatu tuld in t,he State wlrere tho judg- trnctnnt oh la partio qui suocombe a

sblo tendrti doredlo a ser indemnizado con cargo a la cantidnd que quede sin distribuir d0Spu68 de que eean satisfe- chas las domrtsdas on que se hays obscrvado clicho requisito.

Artlculo 20

1. Las acciones que se intenten en virtud do Las diaposiciones del preeente Oonvenio, son ejercitables solamente anto lo8 tribuartlos del Estado Contra- tante dondo h a p ocurrido 10s dailos. No obstante, por acuerdo entro uno o varios domdantes y uno o varios de- mndados, las acciones pueden inten. tarso ante 10s tribunalos de cualquier otro &tad0 Cohtratmte, sin que 10s procedimientoe respectivos tengan efecto alguno sobre lo8 derechos 40 h e personas que intenten su acci6n ante 10s tribunales del Bstado Contratante donde ocurrioron 10s daflos. Las partee interesadaa pneden asimismo someter sus diferencias d arbitraje en cualquier Estado Contratante.

a. LOB Estados Contratantes tomadn todas 1m medidas necesarias para quo el ademandado y la8 clemb partee soan notificadas de las actuacionea quc los conoiernan y puedan tener una justa ,oportunidad de defender debidamente sus intcreses.

3. Los Estados Contrntantes procur&, en la medida do lo posihle, que un sdlo tribunal decida en un 6610 juicio sobre todm las acciones mencionadas en el pbrafo 1 del presente articulo quo 8e reficran a un mismo hecho.

4. Cumdo una sentencia pronunciada, incluso en rebeldia, por el tribunal com- petente en virtud de Ias disposicionea del presente Convenio, eea ejecutorie de acuerdo con la ley de Gal tribunal, se ejecutsrh, cumplidas la8 formalidador preacritas por la ley del Estado Contra- tante, o do cualquiora do sus territories, Estarloa o provinoias, en donde ee pida Is ojecuci6n :

( 0 ) on el Bstado Contratante dondo la parto condonada tenga sn domicilio o la sedo principal de sue ncgocios ; o

( b ) si lo8 bicnos disponiblos en ese EstnBo o on el que se pronunci6 scn-

mcnt was pronounced arc insv.Rci(lllt to satisfy t,hc jizdgment, in any o t l w Qontraeting State where t,hc judgmcnd debtor has asscts.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 4 of t,his Art,iclc, tho court to which application is m d o for ox- ecution may refuse to issue execution if it is proved that any of tho following circumsta.nces exist :

(a) the judgment ma,s given by default end the dofendad did not acquire knowlcdge of t,he proceedingg in sufficient time to act upon it ;

(b) the &fen&.int was not given a fair and adequate opportunity to defend his interests ;

(c) tho judgment is in respect of a cause of action which ha'd already, as between the s:tme parties, formed the subject of A judgment or an arbitral award wbioh, under the law of the State where execution is sought, is recognized as final and conclusivo ;

(d) the judgmenl h ~ ~ t bccn obtained by frand of any of the parties ;

(e) the right to enforce tho judg- mcnt, is not vested in %he person by whom the &pplic:&tion for execution is rmdc . 6. Tho nlcrifs of the case m y not bo rcopnmcd in proceedings for execution iir~cier yara,grapli 4 of this Article.

7. 'Chc court to which application for oxcrirtion is mado may also refuse to i~suo e~ccut~ion if $he judgment con- ocrncd is contrary $0 the public policy of the State in which execution is requcsterl.

8. If, in proceedings brought according to paragraph 4 of this Article, execution of Sny judgment is rcfused on any of tho grounds referred to in subparagraph~ (a), (b) or ( d ) of paragraph 6 or paragraph 7 of this Articlc, the claimint sl~%ll bc entitled to bring a new action hcforc the courts of the State vhcrc cxcciition has bcen refascd. The judgment ronclercd in such now action Inny not rcsnlt in the total compensrition nwardcil rxcct~(1ing the liniitu applicable uncicr tho provisions of this Corn cntion. In si\c.h ncm action thv p r ~ i o r t s j u ~ l ~ m c n t shall h~ n 11rf~ncc only to thr cstcnt to whiel~ it I m 1)wn

ti. Nonobstnnt lcs dispositionri d u para- grfipl~o 4 (111 pr(:scnt, Art irk, I'cxCcution dl1 jugcmcnt pcut Glm. rcfush? h i 1s prcuro do l'un ii(w faita suiwnls cst ap- portsic an tribunfil saki do 1% dcrnandc tl'cx6cution :

(a) le jugcmcnt a Et6 rcnrlu par d6fnnt ct lo 616fendcur n'a pas on con- no,issancc do I'action intent& contre lui on tclnps utile pour pouvoir y r6- pondre ;

(b) le d6fendeur n'a pu defendre Res int.6r6ts dans des conditions add- quatcs et dquitilhles ;

(a) Ic jugonlent so rapporte 9, un lit'ige qui a d6ji fait l'objct, entw lea m&mes parties, d'nn jngcmcnt 0x1 d'uno sentmcc arhitralo qui, c1'apri.s I s loi de 1'Etnt oh I'oxCeution cat deni:1~nrl60, cst rcconnu rornrne : L ~ : L I I ~ l'auiiorit6 de 1~ chose jlrg(:c!o ;

(d) lc jugcment a Bt6 obteuu par des msnoxtvres fraudi. 'C isex dc 1'1utc ou l'nutrc partie ;

(e) la pcrsonnc qui d~~martde l1cx6- cution n'a pas qnalit6 pour lc Eairc.

6. La revision d11 l'affnire :~,u fond n'est pas admiso dans UIW proc6dure d'cx6- cution intcntde c:oilformi.ment au para- g r a p h ~ 4 drr prdscul Article.

7. L'exBeution peut Btre Ogaltwent rctusdc si le jugemcnt est coutmirc B l'ordre public de 1'Etat ob I1exbcntion eat demand6e.

8. Si, dans une proc6dure engag& conformement au paragraphe 4 du present Article, l'es6cution d'un jugement a 6t6 rcfus6e pour l'un des motifs Bnum6rds a u s alindas (a) , ( b ) ~ (d) tln paragraphe 5 on eu paragraphe 7 du pr6sont Article, le dcmandeur e Ic droit do porter uno nouvella action judiciaire devant les tribnnaux dc 1'Etat oil l'cx6cution a 6t6 rcfus6e. La cldcision L intervenir ne pourm allouer une indemsitt? tellc quo la totalit6 des indcm11it6s attribu6es d6passc 1s limitc do responsabilit6 ap- p l i c d h cn vertn dcu dispositions de la 1wi.s~ lit c Convc~ntion. Dans ccttc nou- wllr action, lc jugcmcnt :~i~ti.rieur no

5. No o l ~ s t n ~ ~ t c las disposicioncs dcl pGl~:~fo 4 (]el presonte articulo, poctrh ncgnrsc la cj~rnri6n dc la ventencia si cl trib11n:~l rqocrido rccibo priiohns do ~u:~lqlricr:1 de 1as circunstancias ~ignientm :

(a) l : ~ scntoncia ha sido diotada cn rebcldis y el demandado no tuvo conocimicnto dcl proceso con tiempo suficicnto pnru comparecer ;

( b ) no se ha dadosi demandado une just& oportunidad dc defcnder debidamente sus intcrcses ;

(c) la selltencia se refiere a un litigio entrc l:18 nlis~nns pnrtes que ha uido ya objeto de un f:tlln o laudo arbitral, que, sc@n la lcby t l d Estado rquarido, ticne la autoridad cle cosa jusgada ;

( d ) I s sentencia ha sido obtenida por fraudz? clc : ~ l y n a de las pnrtcs ;

(e) 1% persona que haya solicitndo In ejacucih do la scntcncia no rcimo Iss condicioncs para hacdo .

6. No se podrii reviser el folido del asunto en el proccdinlicnto cle ejrcuci6n provisto en cl pZlrrafo 4 do este articulo.

7. Podrh negarse igualmente la eje- cncibn si la sentoncia va en contra del orden pfiblioo del Estado do1 tribunal requarido.

8. Si cn el procedimiento emprcn~lido eonformc a1 p8rrafo 4 dc cste articulo, se rehilsa la cjoc~ci6n do cualqder sentencia por cualqniera dc las causas prcvishas en 10s incisos (a), (b) o (d), del pjrrafo 5, o cn elpjrrafo 7 do este articulo, el actor tendr8 derccho a cjorcitar una nucva a8cci6n anto 10s tribumlcs del tarlo lo dondo se neg6 la ejecaci6n. La scntcncia clue so dicto no podrs conccdcr una indcm1dxaci6n que tonga por concccucncia qne la totalidad de 18s indcmnizaciones sobrepaso 10s lfmitcs aplicnhlcs srghn Ins ciisposiciol?~~ clc cstc Co!~rc.nio. E n tnl nccih, In sclntcncin nntcrior constitnir8 una

siltibfied. The prcviow judglnellt shall oeaso to bo enforccable as soon ns the new action has l m n started.

The right to bring n now act ion undcr t,his paragraph shrill, ~ ~ o t m i t 1lst:lnciing the provisions of Art ic.10 31, bc subjoot to a period of linlitntioll of one year from the datc on which 1110 c1:lim:mt has received notification of the rc f~~sa l to execute the jndgment.

9. Notwithstanding the provisiol~s of paragraph 4 of this Articlc, tho court to which applicfition for crecution is made shall refuse cxccution of any judgment rendered by a court of a State other than that in which the damage occurred until all the judgments rendered in that State have been satisfied.

The court applied to shall also refuse , , , I issuo csccution until final judg-

ment has been given on all actions filed in the State TVLlcro the damage oocurred by those persons who have complied with the t,ime limit referrcd to in Article 19, jf tho judgment debtor proves that the total amount of compensation which might be awarcteil' by such juclg- ments might exceed the applicable limit of liability undcr tho provisions of this Convention.

Similarly such court shall not graut execution when, in the case of actions brought in the State where the damago occurred by thoso persona who have complied with tho timo limit referred to in Article 19, the aggregate of the jndgmcnt,~ exceeds tho applicable limit of liability, unt,il such judgments have been rcrluccd in accordance with Ar- t ide 14.

10. W h r c a jltdgnlent is rendered enforcenblo unilrr this Art,icle, payment of cocts recovcrad)le nnder t,hc j i~dg~nent @hall also hc cnforcenblc. Nevertheless the court appliccl to for execution may, on the npplic:~l ion of tho jttdgmcnt dcbt,or, limit tlic nmount ol such costs to A sum cqu:!l to ten pcr c c n l u ~ ) t of the

9. Nonobstant lee dispositions du paaa- graphu 4 du prCscnt Article, lc tribunal saiai de la demande d'ex6cutioh rcfusera l'cx6cution do tolit jugemcut rsndu par un trihunal d'un S t a t m t r e que cclui oil erjt surlcnu le dommage tant quo tous les jugements rendus dans cc der- nier Eta,t u'auront pas bt6 ex6cutCs.

I1 la refusora bgalenlent tant quc des jugements dbfinitifs n'ont pns 6t6 rcn- dus sur toutes 1es actions intcnt6es dins 1'Etst oh le dommage est sulvenu par 10s personnes aynnt observ6 le ddlai prdvu b I'Articlu 19, si la d6fcndeur prouvc quc l'enscmblo dcs indcmnitb qui pourr:~ient Ftrc :1llou6ts par ccs ju- goments d6p:lsscr:~it 1s limitc de rcspon- sabilit6 nl~plicablo cn vcrtu tics difipo- sitions tic I:& prdsentc Convcntion.

Dc nlFme, en cns d'actions intentbee par Ics perdonncs aynnt obselvG le d6lai pr6vu h llArticla 19, dens 1'Etst oil le donimago cat survcnu, lorsquo lo montant global dcs c~nda~mnations ddpassc la linlito dc rcsponsabilit6 a8pplicable, ce tribunal n'ordonncra pas l'es6cution avant quc les indemnites aient 6t6 rG- dnitcs conform6ment a n s dispositions do ]'Article 14.

10. Lorsqu'un jugement est rendu ex6- cutoire en vert'u' des dispositions du prCsent Article, la condamnation aux d6pens est Bgalement ex6cutoire. Tou- kfois, le tribunal auquel la dema~lde d'cx6cution est adressBe peut, 13, la demande de la partie qui succombe, limi- ter le montant de ces dBpens r i dix pour cent de la somme pour loquelle lc jugement cst rendu ex6cutoire. Les limites de responeabilitB ne tiennent pas compte des dbpens.

11. Lrs indemnitBs S rerser en vertu d'un jugemmt pourront porter int6rbt h coacnrrence d'un taus masinmm de cluatre pour cent par an, i oompter du jlwr tlu jugcnlcnt dont I'csdcution est l ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ l 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .

exc~poibn oponiblo solttmcnto por la cunl11,ia quc se Imya pagndo. La scnten- cia :~nt.cl.i~rno podr6 ser rjecutada dcsdu cl n~ommto en quc so prescntc Is nuova dcni:r udn.

101 tlcrccho a intentar una nuova ac:cibn tlc aouwdo eon el presel~te phrrafo pru~cribirli~, lro ol)stnnl,c lo dispuc~to en el :~rticlilr, 21, :%I :in0 cle 1:~ fccha en qut! cl atetor scn notiricado ilc la nt.gativa A cjccntw la sontc~ncia.

9. No obstantc las difiposiciones del pilrrafo 4 del presente articulo, el tribunal requerido denegarA la ejecuci6n de cualqlder sentencia dictada por un tri bnml quo no sea el del Estado en que ocurrieron 10s dnllos micntras qlle no hayan sido ejecutada~ las sentencias dictadas on dicho Estado.

Asimismo, denegal5 la ejecuci6n hasta quc no se dictc sentencia definitiva sobre toclas las acciones intentadas por Ias personas quo hnyan 'observndo el plazo sellalado en el artic1110 19, si el demmdsdo prueba que el total do h a indcmnizacioncs que pudieran conce- d e r ~ ~ por v i r t ~ ~ d de tal sentencia esce- doria clcl lirnite de responsabilidad aplirable seglin este Convenio.

Si el importo total de la condena re- fercntc a ecciones intentadas, en el Estado donde han ocurrido 10s dallos, por la8 personas quc hayan observado el plazo seilalado en el articulo 19, excc- dc de 10s limites dc rcsponrtabilidad aplicables, el tribilnal requerido dcnegari la cjecuci6n en tanto no scan reducidas las inden~nizaciones conforme a1 nrti- cnlo 14.

30. IS1 acuerdo de cjecuci6n de uns sentencia llcva aparcjada la do la condrna en costas; sin embargo, a poticidn do la parte condenada, el txi- bunal requerido pod& limitar el importe de la condena a un die2 por ciento do la cantidad ouya rjccuci6n sc haya con- ccdido. Las costas no quedan compren- didas dentro de 10s lfmitcs de reapones- biliilnd cstablecidos por este Clonvenio.

11. Las indenmizacionos acordadas en una sentenci~ poddn devengar in te rh du hasta el cuatro por ciento anual, a pnrtir dc la feoha do I s scntcncia cnys rjwuciGn fie ~olicite.


1. Aotions under this Convention shall 1. Lcs actions prdvi~cs par Is pr6- 1. lib acciolles fundadas en este Uon- be subject to a poriod of limitation sento Convention so prescrivont per v e n i ~ prescribir4n a 10s dos a f l o ~ con- of two years from the date of the inoi- doux ana B partir du jour oh est sur- tados a partir do la fecha en quc ocurri6 dent which caused the damage. vonu lo fait qui a produit lo dommrago. ol hecho que di6 lugar a 10s defios.

2. The grounds for susponsion or interruption of the period referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be determined by the law of the court trying the action ; but in any a s o the right to institute an action shall be extinguished on the expiration of three years from the date of the incident which caused tho damage.

2. Les causca do suspension ou d'interruption de la prescription visQ au paragraphe 1 du prbsent Article sont d6tennin6os par la loi du tribunal ~ a i s i ; m i s dans toss lea caul l'action n'est plus recevable & l'expiration do trois a m & partir dl1 jour olt eat survenu le fait qui a, caus6 le dommage.

2. La8 causas do suspensi6n o internlp- ci6n do1 period0 provieto en ol p6rrafo 1 de esto articulo ser&n las deterrninadas por la ley del tribunal qse conozca del juicio ; pero en todo caso la aoci6n caducm& pasados tree afios s partir do la focha on quo ocurrid el hecho quo di6 lugm a 10s daflos.


In the event of the death of the person En ces de ddcbs do la pcrsonno res- En caso do muerte de la persona liable, a n action in respect of liability ponsable, l'action cn rdpmtion pr6- rcsponsablo, la acci6n por dafios. cnder the provisions of this Uonvention VUe pal' dispoSiti0n~ 4. la present0 conforme 3, 1as disposiciones del presen- shall lie against those legally respon- Conv~ntion t3'0~0rC0 contre sea W m t 6 to Convenio, sere ejercitable contra sible for hie obligations. droit. sus dmecho-habientes.

A.PPLIUATION OF THE OONVENTION APPLIUATlON Dl3 LA CONVENTIOIT APLT.CACION DEb GONVENlO

AND CIENDBAL PROVISION8 l3T DISPOSITIONB GENEEALES Y D18POSICJONES GENERALES

Article 23 Article 23 Arriculo 23

1. T h i ~ Convention applies to damage 1. Cette Convention s'appliqueauxdom- 1. El prosento Convcnio so nplica a 10s contemplated in Articlo 1 caused in the -gee via& b 1'Articlo premier, s u m u s dafios definidos en 01 articulo 1, causadoa territory of a Contraoting State by an sur le territoire d'un Etttt contractant en el territorio de un Estado Contra- aircraft registered in the territory of e t provenant d'un a6ronef immatricul6 tante por una aeronave matricultida en mother Contracting State. dam le territoiro d'un m t r e Etat con- otro Estado Contratante.

tractant.

2. For the purpose of this Uonvention 2. A.ux fins do la pr6sonte Convention, 2. A 10s fines do1 presonte Convenio, s ship or aircraft on the high sew shall un navire ou un a4ronef on haute mer todo bnque o aeronavve on alta mar se be regarded as part of the territory eat comia6d comme partie du ter- considcra como partc do1 territorio del of the Stato in which it is registered. ritoiro de 1'Etat dans lequel il est im- Estado dondo estdn matriculados.

matricul6.

Article 24 Article 24 ArtIculo 24

T h i ~ Convention shau not apply to La prdscnte Convention ne s'appliqne El prosonto Oonvenio no se aplioa a damage causcd to an aircraft in flight, pne :ws dommnges cnna& h un a6ro- lo8 dnflos causados a untl aeronano en or to pcrsonu or goods on board suoh noE on vol, nux porsoaucs ou aux bicm vuolo o a las personas o bienc~ (E hordo aircraft. qui so trouvont & borcl do cot acironof. de la mismn.


This Oonvention shall not apply to damage on tho surface if liability for suoh damage is regulated either by a wntract botweon the pcrson who suffcrs auoh damage and tho operator or the person ontitled to uso tho aircraft at the time tho damago occurred, or by tho law relating to workmen's oompensation applicable to a contract of employment botweon such persons.

Ida prOsente Conveutioa no s'oppli- quo pas aux donmagos h la siirfaco si la responsabilitd pour ccs dornniagvj est rOg16o soit par un controt ontm la personno qui subit lo dornmago ot l'ex- ploitnnt ou la pcrsonno oyant lo droit d'iitilisor l'a0ronef nu moment oh s9est produit lo dommago, soit par la loi sur la r&glcmentation du travail applicable aux contrats do travail conclus ontro cos porsonncs.

101 prcsctntc Convenio no so splics o 10s dnnos en la superficio si la rcspon- sabilklad por lo8 mismos se regula por un conlmto ontre la persona qlie 10s sufrc y el operador o la persona quc tenga clorocho a asar la aeronave cuando ociaran 10s daaos o por la Icy do pro- tecci6n a1 trabajndor splic;hle a1 contrato do trabajo colebrado cntre tales pcrsonm.

Article 26 Article 26 Artlculo 26

This Oonvention shall not apply to La pr6senh Convention no s'applique E l presente Convonio no se aplics a a m a g e caused by military, customs pas aux dommagee causQs par des a6ro- 10s daflos causados por aeronaves mili- or police aircraft. nefa militaires, de douane ou de police. tares, de aduanas o de poliaia.


Oontraoling States will, as far as possible, facilitate payment of compensation under the provisions of this Oon- vention in the currency of the State where the damage occurred.

Article 28

If legislative measures are necessary in any Oontracting State to give effect t o this Convention, tho Secretary General of the International Oivil Avia- tion Organization shall be informed forthwith of tho measures so taken.

Article 29

As between Contrwting M&cs which have also rotificd tho International Oonvontion for tho Ur~iflcation of Clor- tain Rules relating to Damage caused by Aircraft to Third Partries on the Surface opened for signature a t Rome on the 29 May 1933, the present Con- vention upon its entry into force shall suporsedo the said Golivention of Rome.

Article 30

For the purposes of this Convention :

- e Pcmon )) mcans m y natnml or legal person, inclu~ling a St,:ttc.

Les Etats contractants faciliteront, Los Estados Contratantes facilitnrtin, autant que possible, le paiemcnt d e ~ en la medida do lo posible, que el pago indemnitt!s dues en vertu des disposi- de la indemnizaci6n prevista en este tions de la prt!sente Convention, dane Convenio se efectu0 on la moneda del la monnaie de 17Etat oh le dommsge Estado en quo ocurri6 el dano. est survenu.

Article 28 Articulo 28

Si, dam un Etat contractant, des Si para pollcr en vigor el presente Con- mesures 1Ogislativea sont n6ocssaires vonio fuere nccesario tomar medida~ tle pour domer egct & la pr6sente Oon- caracter legislative en cualquier Estado vention, le Secrdtaire g6nOral do 1'0r- Oontrstnnte, laa mismas serrin comuni- gonisation de lfAviation civilo interna- cadas inmediatamente a1 fiecrotario tionale devrm &re inform4 dea mcsures General de la Organizaci6n de Aviaci6n prises. Uivil Intcrnacional.

Article 29

Entro les Etats contractants qui ont aussi ratifit! la Convention international~ pour l'unification de certaines rhgles relatives aux dommages caus6s par les aeronefs aux tiers A la surface, ouverte & la signature & Rome, le 29 mi 1933, la prbsente Convention, dhs son entrt% en vigueur, abroge ledite Oonvention do Rome.

Article 30

dux fins de la pr6sente Oonvention,

- l'expression ((persome s signifie toute personne physique ou morale, y compris un Etot ;

- l'expression r Etat contractant .ta

aignifie tont Etnt qui a ratifit! la Convcn- tion ou y a ailhbrd el' dont la dhonciation n'a pas pris cffct ;

Articulo 29

Entre 10s E~ta~dos Contrtltantes que ratificaron tambinn el Convenio Inter- national para la nnificacih de ciertas reglas relativas s 10s dnnos ca~Sad08 por aeronaves a terceros en la supcrficie, abierto a la iirma on Roma, el 29 de mayo de 1933, el protwnte Convenio desde que entre en vigor, deroga dicho Convcnio de Rome.

Articulo 30

A 10s fines dc cste Convenio 1:tc cxprcsioncs signientm fiignificnr:ir~ :

- (( Persona s, cualquior persona fisiw o juridica, incluso Estados.

- ct Estado Contmtante r, cualquier 1Est:tdo quo hayn mtificado o so hay:^ adhcrido :L ostc Coarenio, hnst:b qsc' la dmuacin, quo llicicw entre en vigor.

- a Territory of a State n means tho - l'expression ccterritoire d'un Btat u - ttI"I'rritorio do tin Estadon, elterritorio metropoIitan territory of a 6tate and signine non seulemont lo territoire m6- motropolitmno do un Betado y 10s all territories for the foreign relations tropolitain d'un Etat, mais aussi tous territories de c u p s relaaiones sx@rio- of which that Btate is responsible, les territoircs qu'il repr6sonte dans lea res sca reaponeable dicho Butado, a subjeot to the provisions of Artiole 36. ~elatione oxtbrioures, sous rbsorvo des reRerva do lo dispuesto en el artfculo 36.

dispositions do 11Artic16 36.

FINAL PROVIBIONB DISPOSITIONB FINALES DISPOSICION~B FINALES

Article 31 Article 31 Artlculo 31

This Convention shall remain open La pr6sente Convention eat ouverte presente Convenio quedarh abierto for dgnature on behalf of any State & la signature do tout Etat jusqu9& a b firm de cualquier Estado haata mt l i it comes into forco in accordance ce qu'elle entro en vigueur dans lea que entre en vigor do acuerdo con lo with the provisions of Article 33. conditidns pr6vues 21 1'Article 33. previsto en el artfclllo 33.


1. This Convention ahall be sub- 1. La pr6sente Convention est sou- 1. Dl presente Convenio ae someterk s jeot to ratification by the signatory mise & b ratiflcation des Etats signs- ratificaci6n por 10s Estados signatarios. States. taires.

2. The instruments of ratifloation 2. Les instruments de ratification 2. Los instrument08 de ratiilcaci6n shall be deposited with. the Interna- seront d6pos6s auprbs do 1'Organisation serhn depositados en la Organizeci6n -tianal Civil Aviation Organization. de llAviation civile int,:r+ationale. de Avictci6n Oivil International.


1. As soon as five of the signatory Btates hevo deposited their instruments of ratification of this Convention, it shall come into force between them on the ninetieth day after the date of the deposit of the fifth instrument of ratiflcation. It shall come into forco, for each St,aCe which deposits its instrument of ratification after that date, on the ninetieth day after the deposit of its instmment of ratiflcation.

1. Lwxque la prbsttnto Convention w r a rduni lea ratifications de cinq Btats sigmtoires, elle ontrera on viguour entre ces E t a t ~ le quatre-vingt-dixibme jour qui suivm la date du d6pBt du cinquihme instrument de ratification. Elle entrora on vigueur h 1'6gard de cheque Etat qui la retifiere par la suite le quatre-vingt-dixibme jour qui suivra la date du d6p6t de l'instrument de ratification dudit Btat.

1. Tan pronto como oinco Eutados signatarios dcpoxiten sus instwmentos de ratiflcacidn do1 presente Convenio, Bste entrarA en vigor entre el lo^ a1 nonagbsimo dia del dep6sito do1 quinto instrumonto de ratiftcaci6n. Parn cada uno dn 10s Butados que depositen su instrumento de ratificaci6n despu6s do esa focha, entrar4 en vigor d nonagbsimo die del dep6sito do tal instrumento.

3. As soon as this Convention comes 2. La pr6sente Convention sera, d8a 2. Tan pronto como outre en vigor into forco, it phdl be registered with the son entr6o en vigueur, enregistrbe au- el presente Convenio, sera registrado United Nnt ions by the Secretary General prbs de 1'Orgauisation des Nations Unies en la8 Naciones Unidas por el Secre- of tho International Civil Aviation Or- par les soins du Beoretaire gbn6ral de tario Ueneral do la Organizaci6n do ganization. 1'Organisation de l'Aviation civllo in- Aviaci6n Civil Intornacional.

ternationale.

Article 34 Article 34 Artkulo 34

1. This Convention shall, after it 1. La pr6sente Convontion sere ou- 1. A1 entrar en vigor este Convcnio, has come into force, be open for adho- vcrto aprhs son ontrPc en vigueur & quedar4 abierto a la adhesifin do cual- rcnco by any non-signatory Stato. I'aclhCsion de tout Etat non signetaire. quier Estado no signatario.

2. The ndherence of a State shall be 2. Ccttc adhCsion sera effectu6e par 2. La adhesibn so efectuar4 mediante effected by the deposit of an instrument le d6pBt rauprh de 1'Organiaation de el dep6sito del instrumento do arlhbai6n of adherence with the International Ci- 19Aviation civilo iuternationale d'un cn la Organiznci6n do Aviaci6n Civil

vil Aviation Orgadat ion a d shall instrument d9adh6sion, e t prendra effet ta$e effect as from the ninetieth day le quatre-vingt-dixidme. jour qui suivra after the date of the deposit. la date du dBp6t.


1. Any Uontracting [Jtate may de- 1. Tout Btat contractsnt pcut dB- nounce this Uonvention by notification noncer la prbento Convention au m o p of denlincbtion to the International en d'uno notification adreash & 1'0r- Civil Aviation Organization. ganisation de 1'Aviation oivile interm-

tionale.

3. Denunciation shall take effcct six months after the date of rcccipt by the International Civil Aviation Orga- nization of tho notifi~at~ion of denunciation; nevertheless, in respect of damage contemplated in Article 1 arising from an incident which occurred before the expiration of the six months period, the Convention shall continue to apply as i! the denunciation had nob been made.

2. Cette d6nonciation prendra effet six mois aprbs la date do reception par I'Organisation dc la notification. Nban- moins, la Convention continuera 9, s'appliqucr comme si la d0nonciation n'avait pas 0t0 effcctube, en ce qui concerne lcs dommages vises & I'Articlc premier, re- sultant d'un 6vdnemcnt survenu avant l'expiration de b periodo do six mois.


1. This Convention shall apply to &U t,erritories for tho forcign rclations of which a Contracting State is rcspon- eible, with the exception of territories in respect of which a declaration hss been mado in accordance with paragraph 2 of this &tick or paragraph 3 of Arhicls 37.

1. La prbsentu Convention s'appliquo & tous les territoires qu'un Etat contractant reprdscnte dam lea relations ext6ricurcs, & l'exccption des tcrritoircs B 1'6gard dcsqucls unc d6cla- ration a Ot6 faitc confor~nbment au paragraphc 2 dii prbscnt Articlc ou du paragraphe 3 de 17Article 37.

2. Any State may a t the time of 2. Tout Etat pcut, au moincnt du deposit of its instrument of ratification dBp6t do son instruincnt do ratification or adhcrcnco, dcclarethatits accoptcmce ou d'adhbuion, clbclarcr quo son acccp- of this Convcntion docs not apply to tation dc la yresente Convcntion ne any one or more of the territories for visc pas l'un ou plusicurs dcs territoires the foreign rclations of which such State qu'il rcprbscntc dam lcs relations ext0- i a responsible. rieures.

3. Any Contractilig State may subsequently, by notification to the In- ternational Civil Aviation Organiza- tion, extend tbc application of this Con- vention to any or all of tho tcrritorics regarding which i t has made a dccla- ration in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Art,icle or par'agraph 3 of Article 37. Thc notification shall take effcct as from tho ninetieth day d t e r its rcccipt by tho 0rga.llization.

3. Tout Etat contractant peut par la suite notifier & l'organisation de llAviation civilc intcrnationale que l'application dc la presentc Convcntion s96tcndra h tous ou i l'un quclconque des territoires ayant fait l'objet do la dbclaration prdvne nu paragraphe 2 du prCsent Article ou au paragraphe 3 de 17Articlc 37. Cettc notification prcn- dra elfet quatrc-vingt-dix jours aprbs la dnte de sa rbccption par 1'Organisation.

4. Any Coiltr:~ctirlg Statc may de- 4. Tout Etnt contrnctant pcut, con- nourlcc this Coln c M ion, in accordance formciincnt aux dispoxitions de 1'Ar- with tho provibions of Article 35, scpa- tielc 35,dc(noncerlaprc(ente Convcntion rntcly for :wy or a11 of thc territories for sPparEn~ent, pour toug ou pour l'un tho fowign rclntions of which such Stato qnc~lconquc des tcrritoircs quc cet Etat i8 ~ ~ ~ p l ~ l l h ~ b l ~ . reprbsentc dnns lc,s rclntions esM-

rienrcs.

Internaciond, y producira efectos a partir del noneg6simo die de dioho de- p6sito.

Articulo 35

1. Los Estados Contratantes p o d r b denunciar este Uonvenio notillcaado esta denuncia a la Organizaci6n de Aviaci6n Civil Internacional.

2. La denuncia surtirQ, efecto seis meses despuds de la fccha en que la Organizaci6n de Aviaci6n Oivil Inter- national rcciba la notificaci6n dc dicba denuncia ; sin embargo, en cuanto a 10s danos definidos en el artfculo 1, que resultcn de un hecho ocurrido antes do haberse cnmplido el plazo de seis meses, el Convenio continuard rigiendo como si no sc hubicre de- nunciado.

Articulo 36

1. El prescnte Convenio se aplioarit a,

todos 108 territorios de cuyas relaoiones extcriorcs sca rosponsable un Eatado Contratante, con la excepci6n de 10s territorios respecto a 10s cualcs se ha, formulado una dcclaraci6n conformo a1 inciso 2 del presente articulo o a1 pjrrafo 3 del articulo 37.

2. Los Estados podran declarar, en el momcnto del dcp6sito de su instru- mcnto de ratificaci6n o adhesibn, que la acoptaci6n dcl prescnte Convonio no sc cxtiendc a alguno o algunos de 10s territorios dc cuyas rclaciones exteriore~ sea responsable.

3. Log E,sta,dos 'Contratantcs pueden, por mcdio dc una comunicaci6n a la Organizaci6n do Aviaci6n Civil Intcrnncione,l, haccr cxtcnsiva la apli- c a c i h dcl prescnte Convenio a cualqnie- w de 10s territorios con respecto a 10s cualca ha formulado una declara- c i h dc acucrdo con lo estipulado en cl p8rrafo 2 do1 proscnte artlculo, o en cl p8rr:~fo 3 clcl articulo 37. Esta notifi- caci6n or~trar i en vigor a partir do1 noriagi.simo din do la, fccha dc rccibo de la misma por la Organizaci6n.

4. LOS E:itados p o d r h dcnunciar el pre- s e n t ~ Convcnio, conformc a Ins disposicionea dcl erticulo 36, hcpnrademontc con rcapocto a, cualquicra do 10s territorios cle c ~ i y : ~ ~ rclacbiones extcriorc~ este Estndo scan rcsponxable.

Article 37 1. Whon tho whole or part of the territory of a Oontraoting State is transferred to a non-wntraoting State, thb (lonvention ehall oewe to apply to the territory so transferred, as from the date of the transfer.

2. When part of the torritory of a Oontmoting State beoomcs an indopen- dent Steto rosponsiblo for its own foreign relations, this Convention shall oeese to apply to the territory which becomes an independent State, as from the doto on whioh it becomccr independent.

3. When the whole or part of the territory of another State is transfor- red to o Uontrocting State, tho Oonven- tion 8hall apply to the territory so transferred as from the dato of tho transfer ; provided that, if the territory transferred does not beoomc part of tho motxopoliten territory of the Uontract- ing Ststo concerned, that Contracting State may, before or a t the time of the trallsfcr, declare by notification to the 1nternationa;l Civil Aviation Organiza- tion that the Convontion shall not apply to the territory transfcrrcd unless a notification is made under paragraph 3 of Articlo 36.

Article 38

The Srorotary General of the Intor- netioncd Civil Aviation Organization ahall give notice to a11 signatory and adharing states und'to all States members of the Organization or of tho Uni- ted Nstio~ls :

(a) of tho deposit of any instrument of ratification or adherence rtnd the date thereof, within thirty days from tho date of tho deposit, and

( b ) of the receipt of any denunciation or of nny declaration or notifioa- tion made under Article 36 or 37 and tho &to thereof, within thirty daya from bho dato of the rocoipt.

Tho 8ccrel ary Ocneral of the Organi- zation shnll ~ l s o notify those States of tho dato on much tho Convention comcs int;o force in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 33.

Article 39

No rcservtAions mny be, m:de to this Uonveu tioa.

Article 37 1. lorsque tout ou partie du territoire d'un Etat oontractant oat trens- fEr6 & un Etat non contractant, la pr6eonte Oonvention cosse de e'appli- quer au territoire transf6r6 & partir do la dato du trsnsfert.

2. lorsqu'uno partie du territoire d'un Etat contractant dovient un Etat indBpondnnt responsable do sea relations oxtAriouro3, la prbsente Oonven- tion cosso do s'appliqucr au territoire devenu un Etat indbpcndant b partir do la date b laquelle il deviont ind6pendant.

3. Lorsquc tout ou partie du territoiro d'un Etat o ~ t transfdr6 b un Etat contractant, la prdsonte Convon- tion e'appliquo au territoire tranafbr6 h partir de la date du transfert. 'l!oute- fois, si lo territoiro transf6rh ne deviont pas partie du territoire mbtropolitain de l'fitat contractant en question, ce dernior peut, avant le trnnsfert ou au moment du transfert, ddcl:~rer au moyon d'uno notiilcation b I'Orpnisation do 1'Aviation civilo intornstionale quo la Convontion no s'spplique pas au territoire transf0r6, h moins qu'uno notification no soit faito au gens du paragraph~ 3 do l'hrtiole 36.

Article 38

Le Secrbtairc g6ndra1 de l'organisation de 1'Aviation civile internationalo doit notifior h tous les Etats sign?tairos ou adh6rent8, dnsi qu'h tous les membres do 190rganisation ou dee Nations Unies :

(a) la date du dBp6t de tout instrument, de ratification ou d'adhdsion, dans lea trontc jours qui suivent la date de 0% d6p6t ;

( b ) la date de rbception de toute dhonciation ou de toute d6clamtion ou notification faite conformBmcnt aux Articles 36 ou 37, dm8 10s trente joure qui suivent la date de cette rbception.

Le SecrBtaire g6n6ral de 1'Organi- sation doit eussi notifier & oes Etats la dato b laquelle la, Convontion eat ontree en viguour conform6ment au paragraphe 1 de I'Articlo 33.

Article 39

I1 ne sora admis aucune rEservc A In prEsento Oonvontion.

1. Ouando todo o park del territorio do un Estmlo Oontratante pas0 a formar parte de un Betado no contratante, ol prcscnte Convenio dejarh de aplicarse a fa1 territorio desde le feohe do su incorporeoibn.

2. Ouando psrte del territorio de un Estado Contratante se conviorta, en un Estado indepondionte y muma sus propias rclaciones exterioras, el presonto Convcnio dejarh de aplicarse a dicho territorio dcsde la fecha de sn indopcnclencia.

3. Cuando todo o parte del tcrritorio do un Butado paso a formar parto de un Bstado Contratante, el presente Convonio so aplicsrh a1 territorio incor- pomdo deade la fccha do su incorpors- ci6n, teniendo en cucnts, sin ombargo, quo si dicho territorio no forms psrte d d territorio metropolitsno del Estado Contratante, Este puedo, antes de su incorporaci6n o on el momento en qua Osta se haga cfeotiva, declzrar por mcdio do sna comnunioaoi6n a 1s Orgmiza- ci6n do Aviaci6n Oivil Inter~mcional, quo ol Con~enio no ser& nplicable a1 territorio incorporado, a menos ~ I I G se h g a una doclsraci6n conforme a b e disposicioncu dcl phrrafo 3 do1 artfcnlo 3G.

Articulo 38

El Secrctario Gonerd de la Organiza- ci6n do Aviaci6n Civil International notificarh s todos 108 Estados signatarios y adheridos y a todos 10s Estados miombros de la Organizacibn o de la8 Nacionee Unidas :

(a) el dep6sito do 10s instrumentos do ratificaci6n o adhesi6n y la fecha en que se hizo, dentro de lo8 treinta dias aiguientos.

(b) las donuncios o cuakpier decls- rw\i6n o notif.caci6n hocha en relaci6n con lo provisto en 10s articulos 36 o 37, y la fechs do su recibo, dontro do lo8 treints ilia8 siguientea.

El Sccrotario Qenoral do la Organi- zaciCin informar& tembibn a 10s Estadoe menciomdos do 1s fecha on quo el Convonio cntrc an vigor de acucrik, con lo dispuesto por el perrafo 1 dcl articnlo 33.

Articulo 39

El prosonte Convonio no podrA aer objoto do rcuorvns.

IN WITNESS WLIER.EOP tho undersigned Plenipotcntis~rics, having been duly authoriscd, have signcd this Convention.

DONS at Roome on tho scvonth day of tho month of October of the year One Thousand Niue Hundred and Fifty Two in the English, French and Bpanish languages, each text being of equal authenticity.

This Convention shall be depoe- ited with the International Civil Aviation Organization where, in accordance with Article 31, it shall remain open for signature, and the Secrctary General of the Organi- zation shall send certified copies thereof to all signatory and adhering States and to all Statee members of the Orgadeation or the United Nations.

ARGENTINE

ESPAGNE

FAIT A Rome lo soptibmo jour ITflCIIO cn Boma el dis aOptimo dn mois d'octobre dc l'an mil ncuf do1 Inc8 dc octubro del a50 mil cent cinquantc dcux en frangais, novocientos cincuenta y do8 en 10s anglais ot ospagnol, chacun do ces idiomss espaiiol, franc68 u ingl6s, tcxtes faisant dgalemont foi, cads uno de cuyo textos tiene igual

autenticidad.

La prdsente Convention sera dB- posh auprbs do llOrganisation de 1'Aviation civile internationale ou, confor~nbment B l'hticle 31, elle rostera ouverte B la signature et le Secr6taire Gbn6ral de l'Orga,nisation devra en envoyer des copies certifides conformes tous lea Etats signataires ou adhdrents, ainsi qu'8 tous les 'Etats membres do l'organisation ou des Nations Unies.

El presente Convenio ser4 depo- sitado on la Orga~izacibn de Avia- c i h Civil Internacional, donde que- dar4 abierto a la firma conforme a1 mticulo 31, y el Secretario Ge- neral do la Organizacibn transmitid ejemplsree certificados del mismo a todos 10s Estados signatarioe y adherentes, y a todos 10s Estados miembros de la Organizaci6n o de lo Nociones Unidrts.

FRANGE

447- / ; ,1 LIBERIA I' .I'

LUXEMBOURO

D O C U M E N T NO XI

FINAL ACT

of the drst international Conference on private air law held under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization

ACTE FINAL

de la premiere Conf6rence internationale de droit privt5 abrien tenue sous lee auspices de I'Organisation de 1'Aviation civile internationale

ACTA FINAL

de la primera, Conferencia Internacional de derecho privado a6reo celebrada bajo el patrocinio de la Organizaci6n de Aviaci6n Civil Internacional

ICOME

7 octobrc 19-52

FINAL ACT ACT& FINAL ACTA FINAL of the first intornational Conference on de la prelnihe Confdrence internationale de la primera Conferencia intarnaeional private air law held under the auspices de droit privd aCbn tenne sou8 lee de derecbo privado adreo celebrada Lajo of the Intarnational Civil Aviation auspices de 1'0rganisation de llAviation el patrocinio de la Organieacih de

Organization civile iniernntionale Aviocidn Civil International

The Delegates at the first international Oonfercnce on private air lqw, held under the auspices of the Inter- national Civil Aviation Organization, met in Rome on the invitation of the Italian Cfovernmcnt, from 9 September to 7 October 1952, for the purpose of considering a draft oonvention relating to damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface, prepared by the Legal Committee of tho Inter- national Civil Aviation Organization.

Lee Ddldguds & la premiere Oonf6- rence internationale de droit priv6 akien, tenue sous les auspices delyOrga- niaation do 1'Aviation civile internationale, se sont rdunis B Rome, sur l'invitation du Gouvernement italien, du 9 septembre au 7 ootobre 1962, dane le but d'examiner un projet de convention relative aux dommages caus& sux tiers h la surface par dcs a6ieonefs Btmn- gem, dlabord par le Cornit6 juridique do l9@ganimtion do 1'Aviation oivile intcrnationrtlc.

Loa Delegedos e la primera Uonfe- rencia Internacional de Derecho privado ahreo, celebrada bajo el patrocinio de la Organizaci6n de Avbci6n Oivil Internacional, se han reunido en Roma, invitados por el Gobienio de Italia, del 9 de septiembre a1 7 de octubre de 1952, para examinar un proyecto de oonvenio respecto a 10s dafios oauaados a lm personas en la superficie por aeronaves extmnjeras, prepamdo por el Oomite juridic0 de la Organizaci6n do Avbci6n Oivil Internaeional.

The Delngations were compotlod as T m Udldgnlions B 1% Confdrence La8 DdegacioneS presentee a la a n - follows : dtniwt rnmp0~4c~s commch suit : ferencin estuvioron integrsdas del mod0

siguiente :

Argentina Argentine Argentina

8. E. Brm:tbo S:imuul GONZALEZ Rmoa Sr. Bu1i~:wio lhriqne LUPERI Dr. Satnrnino SAL Br. Ncstor Ediinrdo HARDOY Com. Julio Oecc~r Dozo

Australia

Belgium

Brazil

Australie

Mr. Hclroltl William POULTON

Belgique

8. E. le Baron VAN DER ELST M. Rend GOLSTEIN N. Gdrnrd L. THIRAN

Dr. Jayme LEOREL Dr. Trnjnno Furtado REIH Dr. Antonio Paulo NOURA

Australia

BBlgica

Brasil

Canada Cnnada Canada

Brig. C. 0. BOOTH Mr. G. W. NADEAU

Document no XI

Dcnmnrk

Egypt

Spain

United States

France

India

Iraq

Israel

Italy

Egypte

Dr. Diaoddinc? SALEII

Bgipto

EspaiIs

8. a. Jose Autonio do 8ANGEONIZ Y UANTRO

Sr. Carlos Gome JAW

Etate -UnL

Mr. Emory T. NUNNELEY Mr. Q. Nathan UALKINB Miss H. Alberta C O L C ~ E B Mr. Richard E. BLWELL Mr. Norman P. SEAGR&YE Mr. Edward C. SWEENEY

France

8. E. M. FOUQUEB-DUPA.R~ M. Andre QARNAULT M. B. TERREL 2 M. M. D u a ~ o s Mlle. Fmn~oise CLAUDE-LUONTAINP M. B. GRAVELIN

M. Henri Boucnfi

Inde

Mr. Dalject Singh BFiATTI Miss aoolbanco Nanabhoy O O W ~

Estados Unidoe

India

Irak Irak 7 '

Mr. Hussein EL QAILANI

Israel

Mr. Eliczer HALEVI

Italie

Prof. Tomaso PEUSSI Prof. ,Antonin0 PAPDO Prof. Antonio AIUBROSINI Prof. Riccardo MONACO Prof. Sslvatoro OAcoPARDO Prof. Dr. Alfonso P1uozZ1 Dr. Federico Zucoo Dr. Fabrizio FRANCO Dr. Angelo Cdauso Dr. Rcnzo FALAsCUI Prof. Dr. Bruno DE MOBI A w . Solr&m MAEINO

Israel

Italla

Liberia Liberia Liberia

Luxemburgo

Dr. Uarlos SOIWARU~A Mr. Gianni mom^

Luxembourg Luxembourg

8. E. Victor BODSON M. Pierre HAMER

Mexico Mexique

Sr. M. MARTIN PEREZ Dr. Enriquo M. LOAEZA Sr. R. PAZ-PAREDEB

Norway Norvhge

Justice Edvin ALTEN

Noruega

Paiees Bajoe Netherlands Pays-Bas

Mr. J. E. VAN DER ~ W L E N Prof. D. GOEDHTJIS ProP. a. H. BEEKEUIS Mr. W. A. STEENSTRA-TOW~AI~P

Philippines Philippines

Hon. Manuel A. ~LZATE Mr. Sirneon R. BOXAS Mrs. M. REMEDIOS AUSTRIA

Portugal Portugal Portugal

M. Manuol Ant6nio FEBNANDECI M. Luiz Jorgo Mouainho de blbu-

querquo Vism P~~mrar.

Dominican Republic

United Kingdom

Repfiblica Daminicana

Relno Unido Royaume-Uni

Mr. R. W. N. B. GILLINQ Mr. W. V. J. EVANB Mr. G. H. CARRUTHEE~ Maj. K. M. UI~AUMONT Mr. R. 0. WILBEEFORCE

Suecia

Suiza

Sweden

Switzerland

Suede

Mr. Karl SIDENBLADH

Suisse

N. Louis CLERC

Thailand Thailande Thallandia

Mr. Nai Konthi S~HAIKOXQKRON

Document no X&

Venezuela

Yugoslavia

The following observers participated in the Oonierenoe :

Chile

Colombia

Peru

The following international organh- tione were also represented at the Oonference :

Venezuela

Dr. Manuel Vicente S o u Dr. Freddy MTJLLER Sr. Viotor Joe6 DBLABUIO

M. Duasn L. Jov16 M. Dragomir D. Nmo1~6

Chili

Sr. G. W ~ O N

Colombie

Sr. Boliaerio ~ ~ N I E Q M GbTUIII).

Lee organisations interaationalee d- aprbe ont Bgalemcnt Bt6 repr6sentdab B la ConfBrence :

Venezuela

Participaron oomo ~beervddsa, t

Chile

Colombia

Per6

Inetitut international pour lVUniflcation du Droit priv6

Mr. Mario MATTEUOOI Mr. V. PAPI

International ME Transport Association du transport a6rien Aeociaci6n del tranr,porte a6rea Association international internadonal

Prof. John C. COOPER Mr. H. J. FRIENDLY Mr. M. LEMOINE Mr. J. G. QAZDIK

Chambre de Commerce internationale

Mr. 8. TOUINO

International Union of Aviation Insurers Mr. A. GOODFELLOW Mr. G. E. CLAIB Mr. 8. MARINO

Mr. H. R. Q I ~ H Mr. M. FATALE

F6dBration internationale dee Transporteure aeriene priv6e

Mr. H. R. GILLMAN

International Law Association

Maj. K. M. BEAUMONT Mr. R. 0. WILBEEFOEQE

The Delegates elected as President hfr. Tomlaso 'P~;EwL~~I, Professor of tnternational Law a t the Univemity of Itome, Uhief of the Italimn Delegation, and further elected as Vice-Presidents Messre. J. E. van der MEULEN (Nethor- lands), T. I?. R w (Brazil) and E. EN ( N o m y ).

The Secretariat was supplied by : Dr. Eugene PEPIN, Director of the Legal Burmu of the Intornational Uivil Avia- tion Organixatiop, Secretrwry-Gloneral of the Uonference ; Mr. Antonio MALIN- TOPPI, Assistant Secretary-Gcneral ; Messrs. G. F. Frrz GERALD, G. B o r n , Q. BONILLA, H. W. MANDEFIELD, of the Utemational Civil Aviation Organiz- ation, Secretaries. Nr. L. Boussm, Public Information Ofacer of the Org- anization, supplied public information services for the Conference.

The Conference appointed a Drafting Uommittee composed of: Dr. E. M. LOAEZA, Ohairmnn ; Mcssrs. K. M. BEAUMONT, G. N. CALKINS, M. Dua~os, R. GOLSTEIN, 0. GOMEZ JARA, 5. TUUL, R. MONACO and M. V. SOBA.

Les DB16guBs ont 61u comme PrB- sidcnt Monsieur Tomrtso PESUSI, Pro- fesseur do Droit international B 1'Uni- versit6 de Romo, Uhef do la D6legation italienne, ct ont dgalement 6lu cornme Vice-Pr6sidonte MM. J. E. VAN DER MEULEN (Pays-Bas), 'I). F. R m (Br& ail) ot E. AWEN (Norvbge).

Le Secrdtariat s Bt6 assurd prtr : Dr. Eugho PEPIN, Directour du Bu- reau juridique de 1'Organhtion de 19Aviation civile internationale, Se- crbtaire g 6 n b l de la Conf&nce; 116. Antonio MALINTOPPI, Secr6taire gB- n&al ajoint ; MM. G. F. FITZ GEEAID, G. BOUA, G. BONILLA, H. W. MAN- DEFIELD, de 1'Organisation de 1'Avia- tion civile internationale, SecrBteiree. Y. L. BOUISSARD, Chef des services d'information de I'Organisation, a as- sur4 lea services d'information de 1s ConfBrence.

La Conf6rence a d6eign4 un cornit6 de redaction compose du Dr. E. M. LOAEZA, Prbsident, et de MM. K. M. BEAUMONT, G. N. CALKINS, M. DUCLOS, R . G o L ~ ~ N , C. GOMEZ JAEA, 8. Im, R . MONACO et M. V. SOSA.

FuB elcgido Presidente de la Oonfe- rencis el Sr. To- Prmm CJaW. tico de Derecho Inbmcional en la Universidad de Roma, Jefe de la Dele- gaai6n italiana, y Vicepreaidentes lor Srs. J. E. van dm J ! ~ E U L E N , de 10s Paiees Bajoe, T. F. R m , del Brasil y E. A ~ E N de Noruogs.

Actu6 de Secretario General el Dr, Eugene PEPIN, Jefe de 10s Sorvicioe juridic08 de la Organizaoi6n de Aviaci6n Civil Internacional ; de Secretario Oe- neral adjunto, el Sr. D. Antonio MALJN- TOPPI y de Secretaries de Cornision 10s Bra. G. F. FITZ G E E U ~ ~ ~ , G. BOW, G. BONILLA y H. W. UDEFIELD, de la Organizaci6n de Aviaci6n Civil Inter- national. El Sr. L. BOUSBARD, Jefe de 10s Servicios de Informcibn de la Organixaci6n de Aviaci6n Civil Inter- nacioml se encarg6 de estoa servicios en la Conferencia.

La Conferencia design6 un Cornit6 de Redacci6n integrado por : Dr. E. M. LOAEZA, Presidente ; Srs. K. M. BEAU- HONT, G. N. CALKINB, M. DUOLOB* L. GOLSTEIN, 0. G O ~ Z J m , 8. Im, R. MONACO y M. V. Sou.

Following their deliberations, the above-mentioned Dclqptcs agreed on the text of a Conven.tion on damgo caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on tho surfmo, which was signcd this day in Romo and shall rcmfin opcn for sigmturc a t t,hc hcadqi~arters of tho International Civil Aviation Organizat- ion as provided in Articlc 31 of the Convention.

Tho forruu of certificates referred to in Ohaptcr 111 of tho mid Convention are attached to thlv Fi1)ibl Act tmd have been rcwmlnended by tho Conference to the attwtion of States, to which, in acco~d:&nco with the 511:rl provisions of tho Oo~ivt.ntion, will bc transmitted a certified copy of t,hc Convention.

A la suite de lcurs ddlib6rations, leu D616g116s SUB-indiquhs sont tomb& dlaccord sur lu tcxtc d'u,na Convention rclativc anx dommagou causds aux tiers & la eurfiwo par dcs adroucfs &rangers qui a dtd sign&(> ce jour b Rorno ct re- stcm oworto B la sig~mturc au sibgo do .l'Organisation dc I'Aviation civile intcrnatiomlo dam les conditions pr6- VU(V B 1'Articlo 31 do In Convention.

Dcs mod&les dcs certificats vises au Chapitre 111 cle ladite Oonvention sont snncx& au pre~ent Acte Final et ont Br6 recommand& par la ConfB- roncc h l'attention des Etats auxqueb, conformEment aus dispositions Andes de la Convention, m a transinise une copic certifibc conformi: dr~ wllr-ai.

La Conf6rence a en outre 6mis lea rcsohlioii et rerommandation suivante8:

IA CONFERENCE, 1tECONNAISSANT I'ht6r6t qu'il y aU-

rait pour lea porsonnes ayant subi dea domn~agce de pouvoir sournettre leurs clcmi~ndes de rdprqration b une prod- ~ U I I ( ~ xpkinlc, mais

Oomo resultado de sue deliberaciones, 10s Delcgadoe antes mencionados ae mostraron dc acuerdo respecto el texto de un Convenio relativo a 10s &Roe causndos a 10s tercerou en la superRcie, por aeromves extranjcras, el cual fu8 Armado hoy en Roma y quedarti depo- sitado, a efccfon de adhesih, en la sede do la Organizaci6n do Aviaci6n Civil Internmiom1 en las condiciones estab1ecid.m en el Ar th lo 31 do dicho Convenio.

Model08 de 10s ccrtificadoa prevktos en el depitulo I11 de dichc Convenio sc adjuntan o la prosente Acts Find, habientlo sido recomendados por la Conferencia a aquellos Estados, a lo8 que, de acucrdo son las diaposiciones flnalcs del Convenio, se le tranarnitirtl una eopia certificada conforme dB 6ste.

11.

La Conferencia, adem&s, adopt6 108 siguientes acuerdos y recomendacione~ :

A

LA CONFERENCIA, RECONOOIENDO el inter68 que puedan

tener las personas que hayan sufrido &Aos en someter sus demandas de indomnizaci6n a un procedimiento espe- ~ b l , pero

HAVING CONSIDERED IT INADVISABLE:, N'AYANT OEPENDANT PAS JUQE OPPOB- NO HABIENDO OOXf3IbBRADO, efa em- however, to ilrsert fin articlo to this cncl TUN dSine6rer pour lo momcnt dans lo bargo, que es esfe 61 momenbo op@tm in the Conventmion fit tho present time, text0 do la Convtmlion un hrticle & de lncluir en el text0 del 00- an

cot offot, articulo a1 respecto,

R E O O m N D S that the C O U ~ C ~ ~ of the RECOMMANDE 8 U OOnseil do I'Orga- R E C O ~ N D A d Conaejo de b-. International Civil Aviation Organi- nisation do 1'Avint'ion civile interna- nizaci6n de Aviaci6n Civil Intelpsolo~l sation tionale

(a) instruct tho Secretariat and the Legal Committee to study a system of settlon~eiit, a t least in appeal plo- ceedings, of inten~:~tional priv3o law disputes that may arise either from the Oonvention signed this dny, or from any other avistioil convention

either by tho establishment of a special pernvanont tribunal,

or by the establishnlcnt of a special ad hoo tribunal,

or by arbiCrators acting under uniform rules of procedure to be developed,

or by resorting to any other existing iutewat-onal institution ;

( b ) mako un immediate enquiry from States to ascertain the objections that msy exist %gainst such systems of settlement cf disputes srisirig in con- nation with intcrnstiolral civil aviation.

(a) de charger le f3ecr6tclriat et le Comit4 juridiquo d96tudier la possi- bilit6 d'instituer, su moins en instance d'appel, un systbme do rbglement des diffOrends int~rnat~ionaux de droit priv6 pouvant n5Ptl.o soit de la Cbnvcntion sign6 ce jour, soit do toute autre convention en matibre d'aviation

soit par la constituticn d'un t~ibunal pcrmanmt spbcia,l,

soit par la constilation d'un tribunal sp6cial ad hoc,

soit par des arbitres agiasant suivant un rbglement uniform Q, prbparer,

soit en utilisa.nt toute autre institution internationale existante ;

(b) de demander dbs maintenant aux Etats quelles sont lea objections qu'ils pourraient avoir B des tels sya- tbmcs de rbglement de difErer~ds pouvant naftre du fait de l'aviation civile intcrnat ionale.

( a ) que encargue s la Secretszh y al Cornit6 jwfdico que estsdien la posibilidad de crear un sistems de soluci6n do controverflim internecio- nales de derecho privado, a1 menoe en apelacicin, que se originen en relaci6n con el Convcnio Armado con fecha de hoy, o bibn en reki6n con cualqnier otro convenio en materia de ~vieci6n,

o medisnte la constituci6n de un tribunal permnente especial,

o mediante la constituci6n de un tribunal especial temporal,

o mcdiante 4rbitros que acthen de conformidad con uu reglamento uni- forme que preparia ,

o utilixando cualquier otm inetitn- ci6n internacioml ;

( b ) que se pregunte enseguida a 10s Estados qub objeciones tienen qua hacer a tales sistemas de so16ci6n de controversias derivadas de la aviacihn civil international.

THE CONFERENCE, LA CONFERENCE, L A CONFERENCIA,

REcOaNIzINa that. its work 11~8 been AYANT BECONNU conbien scs tra- RECONOCIENDO que BUS trabajoe han materially assisted by the report of wux ant htd facilitbs par le rapport sido facilitados por el informe del the Council of the International Civil d~ Conseil de 170rga,nisation de l78via- Consejo de la Organizaci6n de Aviaci6n Aviation Organization on the draft tion eivile internationslo Bur le projet Civil Internacional sobre el proyedo Convyntion, de convention, de Convenio,

BECORI)~ its appreciibtion of this EN EXPRIME son appr6ciation. HACE CONBTAR su agmdecimiento. prepslat ory work.

IN WITNESS WHEEEOF the Dele- EN FOI DE QUOI 108 Ddldguds ont EN ~WI'LWONIO DE LO CUAL 108 gates signed this Final Act. sign4 le prbent act& final. Delegados han subscrito la presente

Acta final.

DONE nt Rome on the seventh day of October Oue Thousand Nine Hundred :~nd Fifty-Two, in one copy wliicl~ shall bc deposited in the nrol~ivcs of the International Civil Aviation Organization, and a ccrtilietl copy of which shall be delivered to all Delegates having pnlbticipatcd in tho Conference.

FAIT Rome, le soptibme jour d'octobre mii nenf cent Qnquante- deux, en un seul exemplaire qui restera dbpos6 dans les archives de 1'Orgauisation de 1'Aviation civil0 internationde et dont une copie certifide conform8 eera reu&m b tous les DBldguds ayant pris part B la Con fdrence.

HECHO EN L A CIUDBD DB ROMA el die sbptimo de octubre dc mil novecientos cincuenta y &a, en un solo ejcmplar que quedm4 deposit:tdo en 10s Archives de la, 0ig:mizacibn de Aviaci6n Oivil In- ternacional y da que se remitir& copia certificada a todas la8 Dele- gaciones que participaron en la Conferencia.

Document no XI

Argentina

Australia

Belgium

Brazil

Denmark

Egypt

Spain

Prance

India

Italy

Argentine

R. S. OONZLLEZ R~sos Sakurnino SAL Julio Ososr DOZO

Australie

33. W. POULTON

Belgique

R. GOLSTEIN

Jayme LEONEL Trajano Furtado REIS A .Paul0 M o m

Danemark

Stig IuUL

EgsrPte

DIAEDDINE Saleh

Espagne

C. U6mz JARA

France

Inde

D. 8. BEATTI

Irak

Italie

Argentina

Australia

Bblgica

Brasil

Dinamarca

Egipto

Espaiia

India

Irak

hmwd

Tomrtso PEWSI A. AMBROSINI Riccardo MONAUO Tomaso ENEA Alfonso l'IRO%ZI Fedcrico ZuCCO Angelo CARUS0 Salvatore MBRXNO

Document no XI

Liberia Liberia

Luxemburgo

Mdxico

Luxembourg Luxembourg

Victor BODSON Picrro HAMES

Mexico

Netherlands

Mexique

Enriquc M. LOAEZA

Paises Bajos Pays-Bas

J. E. v. MEULEN w. STEENSTRA-Tou~SAINT

Norway

Peru

Philippines

Noruega

Perfi

Filipinas

Norvbge

Philippines

Manuel A. ALZATE Simeon kt. ROxAs

Portugal Portugal Portugal

Manncl Antonio BERNANDEB L. Jorge Mousinho de Albu- quarquo Vians PXDREIRA

Sweden

Switzerland Suisse

CLERC

Suiza

Thailand ThaZlande Thailandia

Konthi SUPHAMONGKHON

Royaume-Uni

R. W. GILLING

Reino Unido United Kingdom

Etats -Unh Estados Unidos

Norman P. SEAGRAVE

United States

Venezuela Venezuela

Yougoslavie Yugoslavia Yugoslavia

P0lt LA I'ICEBENTE BE HAOE OONBTAB

quo ............................... do ................................ eat& dcbidamcnte asegurado como ope- tad or de 3s soronove con matdcula .... pm d period0 do .................. & ................................. por 10s welos de dicha aeronave eobre 10s siguientea territories (o dontro de

.... os siguientos lfrnitee territoriales) : .................................. ..................................

.................................. of ................................. i a duly irlaured rts Oprrrttor in respect of tho Aircraft with Ecgiutcred Mnrlc, .

do ............................... cnt tlQincid nseur6 on fia quolit6 d'ex- ploila~J en cc qui concerno 11a6ronof dout lo Marque dlImmat~iculation ....................................

.............. ior the period from.. c s t . . . . . . . . . ....................... ................ potir lib pdriodo du BU ................................ pour lee vola effectuds par lcdit a6ro- nef rtu-doesus tlos torriloiros ci-aprbs (ou dane lee limites territoriales ci-aprba)

to ................................. for Bights by tho said Aircraft over the following territories (or within tho faUowing territorial limita) namoly : . .

.......... I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

oollLre 10s risqucs r6snltnnt de la re- eponsabilit4 yr6vue par ltb Oonvcntion relative aux dommages caue0s aux tiera & la surface par des a4ronefe Btrangera sign60 h ROME lo 7 o c ~ o s i t ~ 1952, con- forin6ment aux dispositions do ladito Uonvontion ot jusqu'b concurrence dea lirnitee sp0cifl6os h llArticlo 11 ot applf- cabloe audit adroncf a11prb8 do l'fbs8~re~r (ou du group d1ausurour8) monlionnd ci-dcssous autoria6 par 10s loia :

contra 10s riesgos cuya reeponaabilidad eetablice el Convenio sobre daAoe cau- eadoe por rteronaves extranjeras a terceros en la superflcie, Armado en R o w el dia 7 oorusan de X9b2, de acuordo con les disposiciones y denf~ro de lo8 Iimites previstoe en el artioulo 11 de dioho Convenio para tel aeronave, por el aseg-uractor o grupo de aseguradores sbajo moncionado, mtorizado para con- trater to1 seguro por h e leyoe del. lstado donde r

againat the riske of liability contom- plnted by the Oonvention on Damage onueed by Foroign Aircraft ta Third Partlee on the Barface signed a t R o m on the 7 OcTonEu, 1052, in aaaordance. with the provibions, and up to the Ximlts epooiflod in Articlo 11 of the said Oonvention as appliosble to the rdd lircrsft, by the undurmontionod Xosurrlr (or Qroup of Insurers\ autho. rtevd to effect such insurance by tehe ~ W H of the &ate:

(a ) eat& matrioulada la aeronavs, o donde

(b) el asogurador (o grupo de as& guradoros) time eu domicilio o la sede prinoipal de sue negooios

(a) whoro the Airoraft Is rogi- atwed, or

(u) do llEtat d'immatllculation de l'abronof, ou

(b) whore euoh Insurer (or Qroup of Xnaurera) hsd his rcsidunoo or prin- olpal pleoo of bueinona

(b) do llBtnt oh lcdit aveurour (ou groupo dlasuurours) a eon domiollo ou son sibge prlnoipel

habidnd,oee comprobado la solvencia del xnlemo por 01 l3stado t

(n) dondo oat& mtrloulada la ae- ronavo, o

(b) dondo el aaogu~ador (o grupo do rasoguracloren) tione eu domioillo o lo aedo principal do sue negoaloe,

~ n d whoso flnanclal rotfponslbility has beah vorlflflad by :

b assurer do tola dornmagos ot dont la eolvabilitb a Bt6 v6rifi6u par :

(u) tho t3toto whsro tho Aircraft la rogietorcti, or

(a ) l'atut d'lrntnutrioulation de 19&61anef, ou

( t ) l%tat oir lodlt sbeureur ou groupu d'aseuroura a son domlaile ou son principal 6teblistjoment.

Firmdo, , ............. ....... en nombre de

(Aubhoriacd Iuvurcr or Group of X n ~ u 1-era).

(Aesurcur ou g roup dlnsauroure autorie6)

(Asegurador o @!up0 de aaoguradores autorC eado)

................... .................... Dato.. .................. Dato Fecha

................... .................... PC'lace. ................... Lieu L u ~ p r

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i~ an Inslrcr (or Cr~wip of Insurers) ii,nthorisctl nndw t lie 1 : ~ ~ s of 1 1 1 ~ Stalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( k r e insert State w7~n'c Insurer is afitho-

surer (or G1.oup of Insurers) 1 ~ 1 s been verificci.

Signed ................ An Authorised O'fficid on bchnlf of (Statc veri fying fimwinl responsibility)

Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plnco

Stamp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CERTIFICATIC OP GUARANTEE

01 ................................. as Operator of the Aircraft with Rcgi-

....................... stored Mark

has obtained a guarantee from.. ...... a bank authorised for that purposo, and that the said guarankc has been spe- uificaliy and preferoiltially assigned to payment of claims against the Opera- tor under the provisions of the Con- ventiou on Dninagc? caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third par tic.^ on tho Sur- f:WO iiiguod :it ROME On tho 7 OOTOBER,

1952, for fligl~ts by tho said Aircraft ovor tho following torritorics (or within the fullowing territorial limits) :. ..... for Lhe pcriod from .............. to ................................. in nceo~dn~wc wit11 t l ~ o pmvisions, and up t o the lirniis sl~cviliwi 111 Article 11, of I he lid ( h 1 1 ~ ~ l l f itlll 1~pplic~ble to the s:hirI Ailt*raft, : L M ~ tlmt the finan- v~it 1 icsponhib~lit y o f the said bank ha8 h v n vcritiecl.

Siguecl ............... AII Authorised Official on Iwhnlf of ........

(Stale of Registry of the A ircmlt)

NOITS ('IilL'PLBlONS PAIL I&S 1'ILJ~:SIPNTICS quc! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................... wI, 1111 :bt,sureur (OU un groupc d'assu- rcurs) autoriab par lcs lois do llEtat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (insirer le nom de llIiinl qui mviemt) h souficriro 1'a~sut:rnce vis& clans le ~ ~ l . t i f i < ~ ~ b d'nssuiancel ct quo la solva- bililb dudit assureur (ou groupo d'as- surciirs) a 6th v6rifiCc.

Sigllaturc ............. Une autorit6 qualifih au nom do ......... (Etat qui ve'rifis la sohabilitd)

Date .................... Lieu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sccau. ..................

CERTIFICAT DE GARANTIE

NOUS CERTIPIONS PAR LES PPESENTES quc ............................... de ................................ en sa qualit6 d'cxploitant do 11a6ronef dont lu Marqno d'Immatriculation est ................................

..................... a obtcnu tle ., Banquc outoris60 h cet efl'ot, une garantic destinCo spl.cialement ct par prdfhrcncc au paiement des indcmnitbs dues per cet exploitant en vcrtu des dispositions de la Convention relative aux dommagctl causha aux tiers la surface par dee a6roneie Ptrangers si- gnb0 & ROME 10 7 OCTOBBM 1952, pour dcs vols effcctubs par ledit dronef au- dcssus des territoires ci-aprbs (ou dam

...... les limites torritorialcs ci-aprbs) : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

................ pour la phriode du . . ................................ 811

conformhmcnt aux digpositions de ladite Convention ot jusqu'h concurrence des liiniles spCcifiCea & 1'Articlo 11 et applicables audit o6ronef et que la solvahilitt! do cette Banque a 6t6 v6- rifi6e.

. . . . . . . . . . . . Signature Une autorite qualifi6e an nom de.. ........ (?tat d'immatrioula- tton de l'ahrmef)

Date .................... Lieu .................... Sceau ...................

POR LA PREkIENTE SE ClERTIFICk que .................................. do ................................ es un asegurador (o grupo de ascgura- dorce) autorizado por las l eye~ del Eutado ............................ (insertur aqui el nombre del Estado donde el asegurador estd autmizado a effectuar cl seguro), y quo ba sido corn- probada su solvcncia.

Firmado. .......... .. Fupcionario autorizau en nombre de ....... (Estado que ha verifi- cado la solvencia)

Peeha ................... ................... Lugar Sello ....................

CERTIFICADO DE FIANZA Pol3 LA PEESENTE BE CF:ETIFIaA que

.................................. de ................................ como operador de la aeronave con

.......................... matricula.

........ he obtenido urn fhnza de .................................... banco autorizado para otorgarls, a favor de ]as indemnizaciones s, cargo del operador conforme a1 Convenio sobre danos causadoa por aoromves extranjeraa a terccros en la superflcie, Armado en RoMA cl dia 7 de OCTUBEE del 1952, por 10s vqelos do dicha aeronave sobre 10s eiguientes territorios (0 dentro de 10s giguientes lfmites territoriales) : .......................... por el periodo de ...................

................................. &

de acuordo con las disposiciones y dcntro de 10s lindtes previatos on el artfcu,lo 11 de dicho Convenio para tal @eronave, habibndose comprobado la solvencia del banco aludido.

Firmado. .............. Funcionario autorizado en numbre de .... (Estado dc matirczlla de la aeronave)

Fecha ................... Lugar ................... LJello ....................

D CERTIFICAT D1S l)BPOrP

NOllS U1~:lbTIBIONS PAR LES I1&ESISNTYB quo . . . . . . . . . . . . a (10 .............. en sn rlualild tl'cxploitant do I'abroncf dont la Marqac d'hn~natriculation cst

of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as Opernt,or of tho Aircraft wit'li l'lcgi- stored Nark ....................... ..................................

eonio operador de la aeronave con ma- trfculo ............................ ha hecho un depdsito en efectivo :

.................................. has niadc a cha8sh deposit, :

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eflcctub i u ~ tlt:pGl CII espi:cce :

(a) ouprbs dc ......... ., Csiuse publiqno do 1'Etst oh l'a8ronef eat imm:~tiiculd ;

( 0 ) with ....................... a depository mnintnilwd by tho State where the Aircraft is rcpistcrtd ;

(a) . en. . ..................... ., instituci6n de dep6sito ebtablecida a1 efecto por el Estado donde la aero- mve estB matriculada.

(b) with ....................... a bank cluly iwthoriscd to act as 2%

deposito~y by the State whcrc tho Air- craft js rcgistcrcd, which h:is been specifically and prcfcrcntially assigncd to payment of claims ngaimt Ihc, Ope- rator under tlit! prorisions of the Cou- vention oil D;~lni~gc caused by Foreign Aircraft t,o Third Pnrtics on the Sur- face signed a t ROME on tho 7 O c r o ~ s p 1952, for fllghts by, the #slid aircraft over the following territories (or within the following territorial limits) . .

(b) auprbs de ......... ., Banque autoris6c 11 cctte 811 par 1'Etot d'imme- triculotion do I'a6ronef1 affect6 spacia- lcnwnt ct par pr6fdrence au paicmcnt des indcrnl~itfis dues par l'exploitsnt en vcrtu des dispositions de Is Convention relnthv 8ux dommagcs causbs par des nbroncfs Btrangcrs aux tiers B la surface signbe b nohll? lo 7 OCTOBRE 1982, pour drs vols cffectut(,s par lcdit akronef au-dessus dcs territo1rc.s CI-aprbs (ou dnns los liniites tel rltori:tles ci-apr6s) :

......................... (b) en banco dcbidamento autorizado por el Estado dc mtricula do la aeronave para que ague como dcpositario. Tal dep6- sito est& espccial y preferentemente afectado a1 psgo de Ins indemnizacionea a cargo dcl operador ronforme a1 Con- venio sohrc dailos cau:,:dos por aeronaves extranjcras a tcrcwos en la superficic, fiin~ado an Eonfa el dfa 7 do ocTusnE dc 1952, por lo^ welos do dicha acronavc sobrc 10s siguientes territorios (o dentro de 10s sigyi-

......... tes limites territoriales) : , ................... por el periodo de ....................................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for the period from.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . pour la phiode du ................

t o . ............,.................... in accordance with tlic provisions, and up to t,lie li~riits spcciilcd in Arliclc 11, of the said C m w ~ l t i o ~ ~ as applicable to the said aircraft.

au . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . conf or mCmc,nt aux dispositiom de la- dlte Convc~ntion ct jusqu18 concurrence dw lirniics sp6c.itict.s h I'Article 11 et apy1ical)lcvi audit Aeronef.

Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . lJuc nutorit0 qualifi6e an norn tle . . . . . . . . . (h'lat d'inznmtriczc- ltclio)& t lc Z'aeronef)

a ................................. de acucrdo con las disposicionea y dentro do 10s linlitcs previstos en el articulo 1 1 de dicho Convenio para tal aeronave.

Sigi~cd ................ An :hut horisccl Official on behalf of . . . . . . . . (State of Registry of the Aircraft)

Firmado. .............. fincionario autorizado en nombre de . . (Estado de matricula de la aeronave)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stamp ...................

Fecha ................... Lugar ...................

.................... Sello

E CERTlFICADO

DTi: OARANTIA DE GOBIERNO

E CERTIPICATE OP GOVERNMENT

GUAlt-4NTISI!: Nous CERTIFIONS PAR LEA PREBPNTES

que . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . en sa qualit6 d'sxploit ant do 17a6ronef dont la marque d'immatriculation est . . . . . . est dfinwnt garanti par le Gouvcrnement do .................. contre Ira risques rksultant do la re- sponsabili6 pr6vuu par la Convention sur It's dommagcs causes par des a6- roncfs Ctrangers aux tiers a la surface sign&? 8 ROME 1C 7 OCTOBRE 1'362, pour les vols dudit adronef nu-dewus deu territoircs suivant s (OU ZL 17int6ricur den limites tcmitorialc;; suiv;mtcaj . .

POR LA PRESENllE klE CERTIFICA .................................... as Operator of t.hc ~bircraft with Rcgi- stered Mark.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . is duly gw~mntcccl by t,hc Govern- ment of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . against lhe risks of liability contern- pltbtecl by the Convc:nt)ion on Damage caused by Borcign Aircraft t,o Third Partie8 on the Sul.f;~,ct signed at ROME on the 7 Ou.ronm 1062, for f l i ~ h t s by thc uiud aircmll ovc.1. t l ~ e follow~llg territories (or withill tllc lollowilig terri-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . torial limits)

.................................. en su cadctcr dc operador de la aero- ................ nave con rn:htricula estfi debidamonto garantieado por el Qobicrno de . . ...................... por la reaponsabilidad en que pueda incurrir, conforme a1 Convenio sob~e- danos cnusados por aeronavcs extranjeras a tcrccros en la superficie, firmado en E O M A el 7 do OCTUBRE de 1952, por vuclos de dicha aeronave sobre 10s territorios siguientes (o dentro de .... 10s limites tcrritorialcs siguientes)

................................... au cows de la pdriodc allent du . . . . . .

.................................. ............ durante el periodo de ...................................

.............. for tho pcriod lroni.. to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in nccordmcc with t,hcs provisiolls, and up to the limits spc.c,ificd in Article 11 of the s:rid Co~~vcwLion as spplichol)lo to thc s:rid airfmft.

a ................................. de acuerdo con Ias disposiciones y por 10s limites rtplicables a dicha aeronave, conforme a1 articulo 11 del Convenio rnencionado.

a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . conformPrnent oux dispositions et jusqu'h concurrence dw limitcs sp6cifi6ee :i I'Alt~clc 11 do Ii~tlite Convention et applic:bl)lcs audit tbCruncf.

Gigr~at nre ............. 1Jnc autorit0 qualifi6e :lu nonl dc ......... (Eht d'immatrieu- lot ton de Z'aLronej)

Firmado. .............. Un funciomrio autorizado en nombre de . . (Estado de matricula de lu aeronave)

Fecha ................... ................... Lugar Sello ....................

Date .................... .................... Lieu

Sccnu ...................

A L P H A B E T I C A L I N D E X

A L P H A B E T I C

NOTE:- The Roman numerals, e.go ( f i ) , r e f e r t o the pages of the Introduction; the - Arabic numerals, e,g, (21, r e f e r t o the Minutes (volume I ) ; the underlined Arabf c numerals, e ,go (2 ) , r e f e r t o the Documents ( ~ o ~ u m e 11)-

Aerial C o l l i s i ons

damage on the surface, 265-268 proposed r e s o k t i o n on, 543-544

See Liabi B i t %

Agents and servants, 33-35, 47-48, 68-72, 76-9.4,- See LSabflf %x, Opera t o r s

i n movement on the surface, 2% on high seas, 351 regis tered i n the t e r r i t o r y of a Contracting S ta te , ,416, ,417, 502, a;

don-Contracting S ta te , &18

See Damages, I n fliaf&, Noise, Normal f l i g h t

A i r Services Transi t Agreement and I-$ Agreement, 309

A i r Transport Committees a%udy of the d r a f t Convention, mii, &, 2,- See Council (comments)

Alzate ( ~ o n o m b ~ e Manuel A,), vote sf t b n k s , 55.4-555

choice by agreement (compromf s ) , 210, 211, 405, 406 enforcement of arbf t r a l awards, 408-410, i n accordance with national laws and b i l a t e r a l agreements, 40.4, &059 406, 407,

413 9 4U9 a recommendatf on i n Final Act of the Conference, 274-278 procedure, 210, 211 with respect t o questions regarding the f inanc ia l responsabil i ty sf the

insurer , 306, 3 2 6 ~ 3 3 0 ~ UO-Ul, 22J.

comments on the d r a f t Convention, 1 3 j 9 138, m, =-&I, u-=, m - 3 delegation, xxxf, 3, a signatory t o the Convention, xxfv, a

4 l ~ h a b e t i c a l Index

Australia

comments on the d ra f t Convention, 113-117, m, B, 127-128, 133-134, 138-132# && =-&, =-=, 160y 163, 166-rn

delegation, d, m9 vfews, 79-80, 103, 105

Bank guarantee, 3.60-161, 322, 341, m; certfffcate , 331- 332, 530-531, 283

Belai urn

comments on the d r a f t Convention, s, delegatfon, d, a, signatory t o the Convention, xxiv, a

Bra sf 1 ___.

comments on the d ra f t Convention, u9 m, m9 ==-a9 I&, B- 153,

delegatfon, xxxf, a signatory t o the Convention, xxfv, a vfews, 76

Brussels Protocol

defences of the operator, 52, 332-3389 519

Canada - comments on the d r a f t Convention, u, 121, 128, 133, I&& u-=, delegation, d, d i f f i cu l t i e s r e jmfrsdfction, 199-200

Cash d e ~ o s f t , 32j9 up I&, Be- See Insurance, Insurers, Security

Certfffcate of inswancea 542-543, l&, =-ao- See Insurance

Chambre de commerce interna tionabe

representation, a 6

Clafms

Alghabetica 1 Index

analysis of claims, 38-200 apportf onment , 164-166, 179, 180, 181 period for f i l i n g clafms, 168-170

Clerc (Mr?) - closing speech, 555

Collfsfon,- See Aerial col l is ion

Cslombi a

observer, xxxi

.Committee on arbf t r a t f on

establishment, xxvfi, 162, a meetings, m i f , 2J'J membership, xxvii, 228, 229, a See Report of the Committee

Committee on Article 4

e s t ab l i shment , xxvf , 51, a meetings, 205 membership, xxvf, 51,

See Report of the Committee

Committee on Articles 7 and 13(2)

See Report of the Committee

Committee on Article ll(4)

eatablf shment, xxvif, 158, 164, 211 meetings, xxvf f , 211 membership, xxvii, 211

See. Report of the Committee

Committee on Article 15

establishment, xxvii, 164, 213 meetings, xxvii, a membership, xxvii, a See Report a? the Committe?

Blphabetieal Index

Committee on Credentials

establishment, xxiv, 6, 9 membership, 11 (note) report , 11

Committee on Einal clauses -- estabiishment, xxvff, 250, a meetings, mif membership, mi%, a See Report of tho Committee

Committee on- Insurance

establishment, 221 meetjngs, membership,

See Report of t,he Committee

Committee on Rules of Procedure

establishment, xxv, 5 membership, 9 (note) separt, 9

aggregate compenrntion, 272, 274 allocation, 104-7.06, 111, 112 s pportionment , l : L l - l l 4 , 115 -119 preference Pu case of death or fnjw'y t o persons, 115-116

Conference of,.Rorne d 19521

ac t f on $3 C:otmc:il, xm3.3.-xxf 3. commi t t e e s , xmi-xxvii5. eredentfals, x d v , 6 date and place, xi.x delegates, x x x t - d v documentation, xltfi, xxvfif, xxx inaugurati on, xxif 3.-xxlv interprets ti on, xxt.3. -xxiii invi ta t ions, xx-xx5l meetings, xxv mirmtes, 552 observers, xxxv organization of the Conference, xxi i -xxi i i preparatory work, xv-xvii president, xxiv, 6-7, vice-presidents, d v , 12 ru les of procedure, xxv, 5-6, 9-33; te*, A-2 secre tar ia t , xxf f -xxf i f thanks t o I t a ly , lorfif

klphrrbetical Index

Contractinn States

definition, 363, 366, 5039 504, 505; U

Convention on dam& caused by f o r e i m a i r c r a f t t o third part ies on the surface

adoption, 542 signature, x x v i i i - a x , 552, 268-269, m-280 ; statement by the United

Kingdom, 552 text , 27-262

See Draft Convention on damm caused by foreitm a i r c r a f t t o th i rd w r t i e s on the surface

Council of ICAO

act ioa on the d ra f t Convention, xvii-xxii commtents on the draft Convention, xvif, 177-202 reeouunendations t o Council, 19-21 resolution on burdensome insurance, 520 thanks t o Council, 545

Credentials, mrfv, d x , 11,- See Committee on credentials

according t o gold value, 345, 346, 347, 348 time sf conversion of francs in to national currency, 128, 155-158, 345,

346, - 211; date of judgment, 3&-347, 212 pyment, 347, u; in the currency of the injured person's domicile, 362-

363, 520-524,. 536; where the damge occurred, w, 143, a

caused by an a i rc ra f t , 19-20, 97 direct , necessary, remote consequences, 19-24

DefWtions, 363, 503, 504, w.- See Contracting States, Flight (~orounll, _Or>erator, Person, Territory, Weight

Denmark

comments on the draf t Comeation, u, z, B, a7, m, J&, =P

U P ws m, delegation, d, a, 279 proposa 1s , 197-198 signatory t o the Convemtion, d V ,

Al~habetfcal Index

Dol, 83, 85, 86 - Domfnf can Republf c

delegation, xraci, a signatory t o the Convention, xxiv, 268

Draft Convention on damage caused by foreim ai rcraf t t o third parties on the surface

analysis of i t s development, xv-xvff, ll--& comments: by States and organizations, xvf, xxx, 109-1.76; by ICAO Council,

xx;Lf, 177-202 discussion: prelf mhary, (13-15; first reading, 1-369; second, 364-513;

t h i r d , 513-548; f inal , 549-552 discussion a r t i e le by a r t i c le (numbers correspond t o Mexico draft) :

A r t , A r t , Art, Art, A r t , A r t , A r t , A r t , A r t , Art, Art, A r t 0

Art, A r t , A r t , A r t , A r t , A r t , Art, A r t , Art,

Ch, 111, 158-1449 494-5019 519-523 , 549 A r t , 15, 348, 433-444, 519-523, 525-

530, 549, 551 A r t , 16, 332-341, 45-448, 456, 464-

470, 501, 527-5359 550 Art, 17, 341, 458-460, 535-536 Art 18, 3U-343, 461-464, 536, 551 A r t , 19, 168-170, 478-480, 536 A r t . 20, ,176-260, 481-492, 537- 540 , 551 A r t , 21, 261, 492, 541 A r t , 22, 351-352, 4l.7-418, 493.494, 541 Art, 23, 352, 501, 541 A r t , 24, 353-360, 501, 503, 541 A r t , 25, 360-362, 502-503, 541 Art, 26, 362-363, 502-503, 541 A r t , 27, 363-366, 503, 541 i

A r t . 28, 366, 503, 505, 543 A r t , 29, 366-367, 505, 541 A r t , 3C9 363-366, 506, 541 A r t . 31-39$ 416-421, 541

table of concordance wi th Rome Convention, 1933 and Brussels Protocol, 1938, a-z4h

texts: Mexico f inal draft, xvf, xviif-xix, B-108; revised draft, fo r second readfag, 22J-a; for t h i r d reading, a-B

See Final ~rov3Sions~ Method and vrocedure, Premratory work

Draftfng Committee, xxv, xxvifi, 11, 27, 277

delegation, d i , a, signatory t o the Convention, n i v , 268

Abhabetf ca 1 Ipdex

~ Q d 6 ~ a t i on a6ronautique interna ti onale (FBI)

comments on the d r a f t Convention, 131-132 representation, xxxv, a

Final A& of the Conference

df seussi on, 542- 546 tex t , 271-283

Final provisions of the Convention

adherence, 106-107 applf ca ti on of the Conventf on and general provi s f ons, &-lo6 167-176, a, a 9

denunci a t ion, 107 duration, a1 ra t f f i ca t ions , 416% 417, a, a r e s e m ti ons , 418-421, 507-512, 220; model clauses, m - 1 7 6 revisfon or amendment, 421, 422 settlement of disputes, Ql,

Flight,- See I n f l i ~ h t , Normal f l i g h t

Forgery, 529, 534-535, Ses Insurers

France

comments on the d ra f t Convention, up 316, 117, 119, 122, 121, 129, I z s 9 2 2 2 9 u, m 9 m9 <u& u, 22, U P u, 1 6 6 9 , 1 6 8

de lep t fon , mi, 2'&, 27q proposals, 59, 85-86, 88-89, 130-131, 139-161 signatory t o the Convention, xxiv, 269

Geneva convention on a rb i t r a t i on of 1923, 209, 211

Guarantee by the S t a t e of Registry, 323-326,

Blphabetf caP Index

Helicopters, 24, 401

Indi a - delegation, d i ,

Instf t u t fnterna t f onal pour lBUnf f i ca ti on du ~ r o f t p r i v6

represent8 ti on, x x m , a

burdensome, 520, m; ICAO Council resolution, compulsory insurance, l4, 161-162, 279-281, 499, 2lJ certf ffcate:

form: mandatory or recommended, 318-319, &l-&3; t o be modified, 318, 438-U, lo19 222; annex t o Convention, &4.2-1;44, 526; annex t o Final Act, 277. 281-%

issued by: appropriate governmental authority, 319-322, 439, a; insurers, 162, 283, 286, 289, 299, 310, 329, 334, 337, 434, 456, _10_1, 18q, a; State of Registry, 287-297, 298-301, 313, 433-438, 528-529

refused by Sta te overflown, 309-3111, 318-330, 433, 522, 536; arbi t rat ion, 306, 315-330, 440-441, a

cost of i nsurance, 59, 74, 119-120,' 122-123, 130-1329 137, 313-3U9 317-318, 435, 5319

deductible clause, 284 persons insured, 29, 30, 31, 282-287, 448-449 private and club a i r c ra f t , 74 procedure of df scussion, 279, 281, 287$ 297, 299, 303, 306, 309, 318, 322,

323, 326 se l f -i nsurance , 284

Insurers

authorized by Sta te of Registry, 433, 434, 437, l&, a; authorized or permitted, 437-438

defences, 52, 316, 332, 333-337, 445-U7, 5359 &, direct action against the insurer, 310, 316, 332, 334, 335, 338, 642, 221;

i n case of bankruptcy, 310, 317, 335, 339-340, 4.92, _102; i n case of change of operator, 334, 338, 448, 44.9, 4U9 467-468, 498,, 501, 528, 532-534, 550; i n case of forgery, 337, 529, 53A-535, 225; in ease of unsatisfied judgment, 310, 335, 339-343, 493-494; granted by national laws, 339-340,

81-ohabetical Index

Insurers ( c w t Id) __I

ffnaaciaP responsibility: a b i l i t y t o pay i n the foreign currency, 519-523, 536; cer tfffcate , 287-302, 306, 322, 329, 433, 437, 439-440, 450, 499, 520-523, 528-529, 531, a, B - 1 9 1 , &, 221, 223; additional evidence, 306-308, 326, a; settlement of confli cts by a r b i t m t i on or reference t o ICAO, 306-309, 3 U , 326-330, 527

not if icat ion of lapse of insurance by State of Registry, &6-447, 450-454, 4.64, 466-4.67, s; consequence of fa i lure t o notify, 4 0, 455-456, 467, 222; fi case of unlawful use, 282-287, 440-449, 452, 4 -465, 469 - k

recognition of insurers by ICQO, 303, 304; l ists of insurers, 304-305 recourse of the insurer against the party insured, 445, _102, B;

against any other person,

International A i r Transport Association (IATA)

comments on the d ra f t Conventf on, lJ2, lJ6, lJ'7, m, & I , m, L 7 , l.3, ms w9 mp a9

representati on, xxxv, a views, 35, 50, 81-82

In terna t i ona1 Chamber of Commerce ( I C C ~

representati on, xxxv, a

International Federation of Independent B i p Tmnavort (FITAPl

repre senta t i on, xxxv , a views, 30, 74-75

Internatf onal Law Associatf on (ILA)

representation, xxxv, 276

International Uzri on of Avia ti on Insurers ( I U A I r

comments on the d ra f t Convention, 132-1332, a, l&O, m, k 7 , u, u-ml lJ7, l3, &, &

representation, x n v , views, 52, 57-58, 86-87, 119-120, 131-132, 270-271, 333-334

uE!l delegation, xxxii, 2'7J

I s r a e l

comments on draf t Conventfon, m, JJJ, &O, l.44, &8, a%, m, 166, 168 -

delegation, xwdi, a, 2?J sfgnatory t o the Conventfon, Irxfv,

comments on the d ra f t Convention, u, 115, 116* 117, 120, g, a, m, 127, l J 7 9 138, u p I.&, u, =-a, 160, 161-' -

delegation, xxxii-xxxisf, a, 279 signatory t o the Convention, xxfx, 2&

certfff @ate r e l a king t o eampetent court , 220-22% %nterna$ and i n t e r m t i o m 1 competence, 227-228, 230-232; mturnatloml only, 232; in te rpre ta t ion of competent, 230

enforcement ( recogmt f on a d ) of f reign judgments, 182-183, 186, 220-221, 233-234; 2, 3&; of a r Ix t rmal awards, ,$08-41e3, a; sf cos t s recoverable, 254-258, 488-4139, 540, s; cos t s riot included within t he 'Limits of P iab i l f ty , 256-258; :frnfts on costs , 257-258, 3; f n t e r e s t on t h e judgmen% debt from t h e date of judgment, 258-259, ,489, 540, 551, 1s; enforceable i n the S t a t e where the judgment debtor has residenee o r p r inc ipa l place of business, 239-238, u; r fgh t vested i n d r f f e r en t persona, 241-24.2, 490, POg

executf ow: i n cour ts of the Contrae%ing Sta tes , 178-1"99, 184$ 196, 481-482; conditions of emcut ion, 222-229,- See Cur renq ; a s s e t s avai lable fnsuf- P ic ien t , a; only judgments rendered by t he cour t of t he S t a t e where damage occurred, 489; without prejudice t o judgments before t he cour t of the p h e e where damage was caused, 483-%85; - refused u n t i l f i n a l judgment, 252-253 , ,482, a

exequatur, 220, 486 , judgments: already reeognfzed a e f i n a l , 240, 534-539; collusfve, 192-193;

exceeding i n aggregate &he limits of l i a b i l i t y , 252-253, 487-488, 54.0, u; i n d e f a u l t , 236-238, m; obtained by fraud, 20, 246-247, m; public order ( l ega l i t y ) , 79, 106, 23b8 242-244, 247-2499 2519 a; r e s juPd1eat.a (same cause of actfon, same p r t f e s ) , 193-194, 240, a

prescr ipt ion, 259-260, 489, 540 , 5519

Jud i c i a l ac t ion

comments and proposals fmm S t a t e s and In%erna%f onal Osgani zat f ons, m- 162 -

consolidation of actfons, 179, 219, l&3 joinder of t he pa r t i e s l i a b l e fh t he proceedings, 36-37$ 38-43 I fmita t ion of the r i g h t of ac t ion , %Ag 249-253, 261, 4'78-480, 487$ 540, 2;

preliminary not ice of a claim, 4.79; f a i r and equal opportunity t o the defendant, 2N-Z+O9 %03

l imi ta t ion t o a new ac t ion where execution was refused, 245-247, 249; guarantee t h a t claim does not exceed lfmits of l i a b i l i t y , 24.5-2.4.6, 248-249, 487-488

no t i f i c a t i on of t he proceedings, 237-238, 479, r i g h t of actron: agafnst those l ega l ly representfng t he es%a%e, 262;

d i r e c t ac t ion against the operator of the a i r c r a f t which i nd i r ec t l y caused the damage on the surface and continued i t s f l f ght, 266, 27!j9 %la 393, 39fj9 z; f a r compenrsation no% exceeding t he amount awarded by a r b i t r a t i o n f f executfor. of award i s refused, &PO-413

ru l e s of procedure and I fmita t ion of act ions , &-a, lO2-lO4, %-as 2 3 8 - a , a-a -

See Judgments, J w f sd1ct.i on, Law applf cable

Alphabetical Index

Jurisdict ion

a r b i t r a l t ~ i b ~ ~ n a l s ~ 190, 195, 289, 482, cornpeten% ,jurfsdic%fon, 49-50, 228-22% &-z; in%ernal and fnternatfonal

competence, 227-228, 230-232; in%emationaP o w , 232; interpretation of NcompetentN, 230-2322

court of exequatur, 486 forum d e l i c t f , 57, 177-189, 191-194, 196, 208, 4.81-482, 490-492; &-z, 2-2, a; new texts , z-g, s-2; elected (where forum is available), 190-195, 197-198, 204-206; between natf onals of the same State, 196, 202, 266-208; ~ e s t r i c % f o n i n cam of ae%ion brought a t forum del fc t i , 217-218, 491; safeguard s f limits of l i a b i l f t y f o r e l a h a n t a t forum dePictfg4.88-489

forum muBtf pfe, 181, 183, 185, 18% 2204, z-s8 internationaP osopesratfon, 197-201 international cow%, 263, 2-Xi Netherlands proposal, 66-62 proposal on deletion of Article 20 em jurisdictions, 198-20.3 report sf sub-eommsttee on " jurisdictionsn (extract from), 2-z tender ( of f r e s r6eUes) , 2U-217

alPoea tfon among claimants, 116-117, f 18, 119 arbf t r a ti on proeeedi ngs , 464 competence of n a t i onaY courts, 230 criminal ac%s, 79, 98, 99, EOO currency (conwrsion i n na%fonaP), 346, 347 1 damage caused by %wo or more a f m ~ a f t , 267, 2m0, 27% 278 ju r i sdietfon i n the case of a elaim f m execul$on of a judgment, 244 $34,31;8 lega l successors of the vfctfm, 493 PiabiPity outside t h e limits of Rome Convention, 65-72 oblfgatfsn t o re@a%er and insure wiremf%, 281 perf od sf prescrig%ion on judgment, 260 r f ght of' recourse f o r the operator against the operator of another afremf't, 272 tender with respec% %s clafma f i l e d i n cow%, 216

L e a l Committee, xvf-mfi, 545, 546

causes of damage and principles s f Piabf 33%~: 265, 268, 273, 276, 277, 379-381, 389-395, 17-26, z-2, B9 3-2J09 a, u-z

collisions, 269, 270-278, 386, 393-395s 431-432, 5U, loo9 208-202 excep%fons: a i r c r a f t continufng f t s f l igh t , 266, 2 V 9 391, .393, 395, a;

armed confX%c% and c i v i l disturbance, 59-53$ $_8; contractual situations, 353-359, m; damage eaused by m i l i t a r y , customs and pol i ce a i ~ @ r a f % , %2Y9 360-362, =; damage eaused indirectly, 296-279, 380-381, a; mere passage of a i r c r a f t and nofee, 16, 396-400, z; outside the scope of the Conventi on, 63-66, 73-71, 374$, ,

jofnt and several l i a b i l i t y , z; deffnf%fon, 429; table, 3; agents or servants m H n g use of a i r c r a f t ou$efde scope of authority, 34, 35, 4.7, 48, 93-94, 99, 176, 378, s; damage eaused by two or more aircraf%, 61- 63, 268-272, 392-391;$ 4.27, s, 207-202; operator and f lying club, U, 45; operator and lessor, 285; spekator and registered owner, 377, 378; operator and th ief , 109, 283; operator and unlawful user9 3 6 ~ 3 7 ~ 49-50, a-0q9 1191, 175, 2811, 3788-379, 384, 516-519, sg 3 - 2 0 6 ; operator and user, 3 6 - ~ 3 ~ 428 ''

4 '

Alphabetical Index

Liabi l i ty (eontod)

limits (methods fo r determining) : absolute maximam, 128; catastrophic r isk, YO-121, 128-129, 134,-i47, B; ceiling, 138, 139; scale, 121-123, 186-187; value of a i rcraf t , 121, 126, 130; weight of a i r c ra f t , 75, 119- -- 120, 128, 1 3 2 - ~ O p 8%

limits (mod5 f f c a t i ons) : increase, 123-126, 130-134, 155, 375-377, 38S0 47147% reducti on, 125-127, 137

limits per person i n case of los s of l i f e or personal fn3~3-y~ UJ-154, P64-16% 3811, a, &, m, m; apportionment i n case of damage t o person and property, U6, U8, 133, 381, s, a

l f d t s proposed by PC40 Council, 12%-122, 127, 129-130, 132, 135-137, I& persons l fabfe and the i r defences: agents and servants, 33-35, 4.7-4.8, 68-

72, 96, 23-&; lessee, 349; operator, 39-42, 44, 2; persons representing es ta te of l i ab le persons, 262, 381-382, 493; registered owner, 36-39; unlawful user, 48-50, 172, 175, 349; user, 4.l; defences, 63-69., 3-&: a c t intentionally committed by th i rd party not member of the crew, 53-60, 70; agents acting without express authority of operator, 77-83, 87, 90s 92, 471, 473-478, 100; care t o prevent unlawful use, 176, 422; damage for avoiding greater damage, 72-74, 76-7y9 79-80, 82, 86-87, 91, a; impossibility of taking proper measures, 94, 172-276, 379, 205-206; proper measures taken by operator, 49-50, 88, 90, 172, 378, 477, 2; proof by regh te red owner tha t other was operator, 5l4,

persons who suffer damge, 61, 93, 381, 5154 r f ght of recourse, ;

ageins$ aesvants, 479 80; against th i rd party, 99 3 against lessee, 195; against operators in case of collisions, 2 7, 269;

systems sf l i ab i l i ty : 16-17; absolute, L$-15, a, 56-57, 65, 74, 83; presumption of faul t , xxgv, 13-U, 87, m; national systems of various States, 27, 63-75

m%frni$ed l i a b i l i t y , 50, 68, 33-2; eases not covered by Convention, 69; erfmfnal a c t or omission, 92, 79, 85$ 89, 98-99, 475476; dangerous wilful mis~onduct, 76; deliberate intentional a c t of agents, 76, 81, 85; deP2berate fn ten t iona lac t of operator, 81, 83-84, 88, 90, 385-388, 472; intentional damage, 63-68, 71-739 7'9-"f8, 80, 82, 88-90, 472, B, loo; i n complicity wfth servants, 473; theft , 95-100, 104, 107-1099 172-1759 282-2839 383-385; uninsured operator, 280, 281; unlawful use, 95, 96; wrongfully taking the aircf.a'ft, 110, a

Liberia

delegation, d i i , m, a signatory t o the Convention, &x, 2&J

Loaeza (MP,) , chairman of the Drafting Committee, xxv, m i f f , 12

delegation, d i i , signatory to the Conventfon, d x , a

Mere passaw (damage due to).- See N o m l f l f a h t

delegation, xxxiii, m, 280 sighatory t o the Convention, xxiv, 26J

See Loaeea (&,)

Method and procedure f o r considering draf t , 11, 552-552

Netherlands

comments on the d ra f t Convention, 120, 122-123, m-126 , 128, m-134 , delegation, xxxfii, a, sfgnatory t~ the Convention, xxix, a

Noise (damage due to) - discussion, 16, 17, 396, 397, 398, 3 9 , 400 draf t provision, deletion, 18

#on-Contracting Sta tea (1nvf tati ons to) , xx-xxif

Normal f l f ~ h t (damage due to)

normal f>l ight or mere passage, 15-18, 396-400, 504,

comments on the d ra f t Convention, m, U.4, m, _120, m, 136, ma ms ,244-A!$2, . L z d 2,s-22% &, u.2

delegation, d i i , m, 280

Opera t o r

a s operators the following: borrower, 45; charterer, 30, 31; hirer , 30; lessee, 39, U-45, 50, 74-98, 174, 175, 384; lessor, 174; owner, 67; registered owner, 25-31, 36-39, 51, 911; unlawful user, 48, 100-101; user, 100-101, 173, 372,

characteristics: uses a i r c r a f t on his own account, 32, 20-21, 41; controls navigation of the a i r c ra f t , 25, 32, 33, 48, 174, 175, 372$ 375, 3, 41

defences, 63, 184, 3870- See Liabi l i ty definition, 25-32, 36-39, 51, 9, %I recourse against insurer, 468,- See Insurers

Alphabetical Index

Pa kf stan - comments on extent of l i a b i l i t y , 129

Perassi (Prof, Tom so), President of the Conference

election, xxiv, 6 speeches: opening, 7; closing, 556

Person, definition$ 45, 363, 503, 504, l&

Peru - observer, xxxfii

Phi l ipp i ne s

delegation, &ii, 215, 280 signatory t o the Conventiqn, xxix, 269

Pfccioni (Honourable At t i l io) , opening address, xxiv, 1-2

delegation, &v, 275, 280 sfgnatory t o the Convention, d x , a

Prepamtors work, xv-xvii

Private flying, 74

Protocol on Arbitral Clauses, signed a t Geneva 1923, I90

Public order, 79, 106, 236

m s (Dr,), vote of thanks, 554

Report of the Committee 01% arbi t ra t ion

discussion of proposal: Para. 1, 405-407; para. 2, 407-4385 pra. 3, 4,080 410, 410-413; as a whole, 413-4U

Alpbebetical Index

Report of the Committee on Art icle 4

d i scussi on, 171-176 text , a- a

Report of the Committee on Article 7 and Article 1312)

discussfon, 265, 278 text , 207-202; proposals on Article 7: A, 2lS-202; B, 209

Report of the Committee on 4r t i c l e U(t1

d i scuasf on9 3h5-348 text , 211-212

Report of the Committee on Article 1 2

discussi on, 279-330 text ,

Report of the Committee on f i n a l ~ r o v i s f a n s

discussfon, 415 text , m-3

Report of the Committee on insurance

dfseussfon, 331-342, 343-345, 432-470 text , 221-223

Report of the Committee on rules of procedure

discussion, 9 t ex t of the Rules, 2-2:

Report of the credentialscammittee, 10-11

Reservati ons

insert ion of a profision, 418-421, 507-512, rote, 512 model reservations clauses, m - 1 7 6

See Report of the Committee on f i n a l ~rovisiana

Rome Convention, 1933# 366-367,

Rules of procedure and limitation on actions,- See Judment, Judicial Action and Jurfsdictfon

Rules of procedure of the Conference, 5-6, 2-2

Alphabetical Index

Secretar iat of the Conference, xxii

Security fo r operatorBs l i a b i l i t p , 2, m-192 ,

comments and proposals received from Sta tes and International Organizations, m-121

forms of security: A r t , 12(1) of the Rome Convention, 1933, 279, a; al ternat ive forms (insurance, bank guarantee, cash deposit), 331, 442, 443, 4&-&3, 215, 3; form of insurance, 159-161, 162-163, &; other form, 535, &-a; supplementary security, 460 .

guarantee by Sta te of Registry, 323-326, ,531, B; waiver of sovereiw immunity, 324-326; wfth respect t o operator @ s l i a b i l i t y , 348.350, 446, 101 -

proposal of deletf on of Chapter I11 i n the Convention, 158-159, 162, 288, 350-3519 494-4961 497-500 , &

sef zure and execution by creditors (exempti on from), 342-344, 461-463, 102, a; security specif ical ly and preferentially assfgned t o payment of elafms, 344-345, 458-459, 225

summary of practices concerning insurance and other security, 46-47; text , %-&

See Bank -rantee, Cash deposi t , Insurance, Insurers

Servants (agents and) ,- See Amnts

Settlement of d i sputes (recommends t f on t o council), 421, 54S0 220, 277-278

comments on the d r a f t Convention, m, &, m9 m, 160, 161 delegation, d v , a, 224 sf gnatory t o the Conveqti on9 d x , a views, 77, 89

Sta tes

comments of S ta tes on draf t , xvi, xxx; synthesiss m 1 9 6 invi tat ions t o non-Contracting States, xx-xxif representation a t the Conference, d - d v

Suphamongkhon ( ~ r , ) , speech, 552-553

Sweden - comments on the draf t Convention, 111, 120, 136, 139, u, 122-156, delegation, d v , 273, 280 views, 179-180, 345

Switzerland

delegation, d v , 275, 280 signatory t o the Convention, d x , 269

Alphabetical Index

Territory of a Contrac t fn~ State

applfcatfon of the Convention, 418, deffnftfsn, 363, 366, 105 dependent t e r r i to r i e s , 417-498, 107-108 high seas, 351, t e r r i t o r i a l waters, 351-352,

Thailand

delegation, xxxiv, a9 3 signatory t o the Convention, xx ix , a

United KfnPdom

comments on the d r a f t Convention, u, 122, a 6 , UJ, JJO, 137, Xl- U ~ M , 1 4 7 - ~ , = 9 ~ , U , ~ , ~ a & ~ &

delegation, xxxiv, m, 280 statement on signature, xxix, 552 views, 29-30, 122-123, 267-268, 389-391

Unf ted Nations

comments on: f i n a l provisions of the Convention, 167, 168, I&, 170, as B - 1 7 5 ; model reservations clauses, 175-176

United Sta tes

comments on t h e d ra f t Convention, I&, 116, UJ, I&, 126, 130, 133, 134, s, 1 3 4 9 a, g 2 9 & 9 x 7 1 X 2 9 m9 u 9 -157,252,162, s, B, 167, &8, a O B 172-174 -

delegation, xxxiv, a, a proposal on general prf nciples, 12-13 v i ews and proposals, 12-110 83-84, 120-121, 158-159, 178-179, 494-496

Unlawful user, 36-37, 49, 50; dis t inct ion between absence of a r ight and abuse of a rfght, 94-95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100

Use of the a i r c r a f t ( r ight o f l , 44-46

Alphabetical Index

Venezuela

delegation, xl.lodv, 276, 2

Warner ( ~ r , Edward)

speech a t the opening of the Conference, xxiv, 3-4 temporary president of Conference, 5

Wilful misconduct

dangerous, 76, 85, 90

Wrongful act , 74

Yuaoslavf a

delegation, xxix , d v , 276, a

Conference on Private International Air Law, Volume II

Documents

Transcript of Conference on Private International Air Law, Volume II