On 12 February 2013, the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation published on its website the draft Federal Law on the Accession of the Russian Federation to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air of 28 May 1999 ("Montreal Convention").
The plaintiff's father was booked on a flight from Vienna to Istanbul, operated by the defendant. He intended to check two suitcases and keep a smaller bag as cabin luggage. Upon check-in the passenger was told that with regard to its size and weight the bag did not meet the requirements for cabin luggage. He was asked to open the bag and the airline staff at the check-in desk could see that it contained variuos documents, some jewellery, antiques and several spectacles.
In a case reported earlier, the Austrian Civil Supreme Court has now deleivered the final judgment. The plaintiffs had missed their Antarctica cruise following a delayed departure of their feeder flight to Frankfurt caused by snow covered runways at the Vienna airport. They sued the carrier and the airport for damages.
The Montreal Convention provides that an air carrier must pay compensation to each passenger, limited to 1 000 Special Drawing Rights (‘SDRs’) per passenger, in the event of the loss of his baggage during a flight operated by the carrier or while the baggage was in the carrier’s charge. The carrier must provide passengers with an identification tag for each piece of checked baggage.
The newest edition of the IFTTA Law Review is availbale within the members' section of this website. It focusses on air passenger rights, namley the EU Regulation 261/2004 and the Montreal Convention. Print copies are available as supplement to the Journal "Reiserecht aktuell" published by Sellier European Law Publishers, Germany.
In the case which I had referred to in Rostock as "Frozen Antarctica Dreams" and which regarded a couple who had missed their Antarctica cruise following of a delayed departure of their feeder flight to Frankfurt caused by snow covered runways at the Vienna airport had sued the carrier and the airport for damages but their claim was dismissed by the court of first instance, the appelate court (OLG Wien) has now reversed the judgment and held both, Lufthansa and the Vienna airport liable for the damages.
The plaintiff and her daughter boarded the aircraft for a Continental flight from Newark to Cancun, Mexico. After a dsipute with the flight attendants over her seating and and while waiting in the forward galley, the plaintiff began talking on her cell phone. When a flight attendant told her to end the call, she replied that “the pilot didn’t announce not to be on your phone and I’m talking to my Mom” and continued her conversation. The flight attendant then told the plaintiff to stop talking on her phone or else exit the plane.