ARELLANO SCHOOL OF LAW

Taft Avenue, Pasay City

TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLC UTILITIES LAW

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION LAW:

WARSAW CONVENTION
AND
MONTREAL CONVENTION

Submitted by:

Bato, Johaimen M.
Fernandez, Nestor Jr.
Galvez, Juan Enrique B.
Garma, Don. Aehrjay S.
Mazo, Dustin Joseph F.
Merjudio, Adelwisa M.
Mingo, Clariz S.
Paragas, Fernando V.
Tenerife, Coline Patricia R.
Trimor , Cyx Lloyd D.
Udasan, Sittie Shahani M.

Submitted to:
ATTY: RHEA JOY MORALES – GONZALES
Professor, Transportation Law
Sunday 3:00 – 5:00 pm
First Semester SY 2019- 2020
I. BACKGROUND ON WARSAW AND MONTREAL CONVENTIONS

The Convention for the Unification of certain rules relating to international

carriage by air, commonly known as the Warsaw Convention, is an international
convention which regulates liability for international carriage of persons, luggage
or goods performed by aircraft for reward.

On August 17, 1923, the French Government proposed the convening of a

diplomatic conference in November 1923 for the purpose of concluding a
convention relating to liability in international carriage by air. The conference was
formally deferred on two occasions due to reluctant behavior of the governments
of various nations to act on such short notice without knowledge of the proposed
convention. Finally, between October 27 to November 6, the first conference met
in Paris to study the draft convention. Since most of the participants were
diplomats accredited to the French government and not professionals, it was
agreed unanimously that a body of technical, legal experts be set up to study the
draft convention prior to its submission to the diplomatic conference for approval.
Accordingly, in 1925, the Committee International Technique of Experts Juridique
Aeriens was formed. In 1927 – 1928 CITEJA studied and developed the proposed
draft convention and developed it into the present package of unification of law
and presented it at the Warsaw Conference which was approved between October
4 to 12 , 2919. It unified an important sector of private airlaw.

After coming into force on February 13, 1933, it resolved some conflicts of
law and jurisdiction. Between 1948 to 1951it was further studied by the legal
committee set up by the International Civil Aviation Organization and in 1952 a
new draft was prepared to replace the convention. However it was rejected and it
was decided that the convention be amended rather than replaced in 1953. The
work done by the legal committee at the 9th session was presented to the
International Conference on Air Law which was convened by the Counsil of the
ICAO and met at The Hague from September 6 to 28, 1955. The Hague Conference
adopted a protocol for the amendment of o the Warsaw Convention. Between the
parties to the Protocol, it was agreed that the 1929 Warsaw Convention and the
1955 Hague Protocol were to be read and interpreted together as one single
instrument to be known as the Warsaw Convention as amended at the Hague on
1955. This was not an amendment to the convention but rather a creation of a new
and separate legal instrument that is only binding between the parties. If one
nation is a party to the Warsaw Convention and another to the Hague Protocol,
neither State has an instrument in common and therefore there is no mutual
international ground for litigation.

On May 28, 1991, International Civil Aviation further amended the Warsaw
Convention organized Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for
International Carriage by Air or known as The Montreal Convention. It amended
important provisions of the Warsaw Convention's regime concerning
compensation for the victims of air disasters. The Convention attempts to re-
establish uniformity and predictability of rules relating to the international
carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo. The Montereal Convention, signed in
1999, replace the Warsaw Convention System.
II. BINDING EFFECT OF WARSAW CONVENTION

Warsaw Convention was ratified by Philippines on November 9, 1950 and

took effect on February 7, 1951. Amended by Hague Protocol dated September 28,
1955 and the Philippines acceded to this protocol on November 30, 1966. Hague
Protocol took effect on February 7, 1951. It was applied to all International
transportation of persons, baggage or goods performed by an aircraft gratuitously
or for hire

III. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WARSAW CONVENTION

The Supreme Court ruled on the presumption of constitutionality of the

Warsaw Convention which was a joint legislative-executive act. The presumption
is that it was carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was
adopted and given the force and effect of law.

IV. PURPOSE:

To protect and promote the international airline industry that was at the
time of the drafting of the treaty, still in infancy.

PAL vs Savillo:
“The Warsaw Convention applies to “all international transportation of persons,
baggage or goods performed by any aircraft for hire.” It seeks to accommodate or
balance the interest of passengers seeking recovery for personal injuries and the
interest of air carriers seeking to limit potential liability.

V. COVERAGE:
Chapter III – Liability of the Carrier
Article 17
The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or
wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the
accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or
in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.
Article 18
1. The carrier is liable for damages sustained in the event of the destruction or loss
of, or of damage to, any registered baggage or any cargo, if the occurrence which
caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air.
2. The carriage by air within the meaning of the preceding paragraph comprises
the period during which the baggage or cargo is in charge of the carrier, whether
in an aerodrome or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of a landing outside an
aerodrome, in any place whatsoever.

Limit Form Exception

Special Contract for
250,000 Periodical
Passengers higher liability;
French Francs payments
Negligence
Checked in 250 French
Special Declaration of
Baggage and Francs per -
the value
Goods kilogram
Handcarry 5,000 French
Baggage and Francs per -
Goods passenger

3. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by land, by sea
or by river performed outside an aerodrome. If, however, such a carriage takes
place in the performance of a contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of
loading, delivery or trans-shipment, any damage is presumed, subject to proof to
the contrary, to have been the result of an event which took place during the
carriage by air.

Article 19
The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of
passengers, baggage or cargo.

Alitalia vs Intermediate Appellate Court

It was ruled that:

“ Shall not prevent the court from awarding, in accordance with its own law, in
addition, the whole or part of the court costs of the other expenses of litigation
incurred by the plaintiff.”

VI. LIMITATIONS:
Chapter III – Liability of the Carrier
Article 22
1. In the carriage of persons the liability of the carrier for each passenger is
limited to the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand francs. Where,
in accordance with the law of the court seized of the case, damages may be
awarded in the form of periodical payments, the equivalent capital value of the
said payments shall not exceed two hundred and fifty thousand francs.
Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a
higher limit of liability.
2. (a) (b) In the carriage of registered baggage and of cargo, the liability of
the carrier is limited to a sum of two hundred and fifty francs per
kilogramme, unless the passenger or consignor has made, at the time when
the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of interest in
delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so
requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the
declared sum, unless he proves that the sum is greater than the passenger's or
consignor's actual interest in delivery at destination. In the case of loss, damage
or delay of part of registered baggage or cargo, or of any object contained
therein, the weight to be taken into consideration in determining the amount to
which the carrier's liability is limited shall be only the total weight of the
package or packages concerned. Nevertheless, when the loss, damage or delay
of a part of the registered baggage or cargo, or of an object contained therein,
affects the value of other packages covered by the same baggage check or the
same air waybill, the total weight of such package or packages shall also be taken
into consideration in determining the limit of liability.
3. As regards objects of which the passenger takes charge himself the liability of
the carrier is limited to five thousand francs per passenger.
4. The limits prescribed in this Article shall not prevent the court from awarding,
in accordance with its own law, in addition, the whole or part of the court costs
and of the other expenses of the litigation incurred by the plaintiff. The
 foregoing provision shall not apply if the amount of the damages awarded,
excluding court costs and other expenses of litigation, does not exceed the sum
which the carrier has offered in writing to the plaintiff within a period of six
months from the date of the occurrence causing the damage, or before the
commencement of the action, if that is later.
5. The sums mentioned in francs in this Article shall be deemed to refer to a
currency unit consisting of sixty-five and a half milligrammes of gold of
millesimal fineness nine hundred. These sums may be converted into
national currencies in round figures. Conversion of the sums into national
currencies other than gold shall, in case of judicial proceedings, be made
according to the gold value of such currencies at the date of the judgment.

Alitalia vs Intermediate Appellate Court:

However:
“ The liability under Article 17 does not arise if a passenger’s injury results from
the Passenger’s own internal reaction to the unusual, normal and expected
operation of the aircraft. ”

US cases did not apply Article 17 in the following instances:

 Terrorist attack
 Hi-jacking
 Drunken passengers and injures fellow passengers

VII. MEANING OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

Article 1 of Warsaw Convention defined International Carriage as:

“any carriage in which, according to the contract made by the

parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether
or not there be a break in the carriage or a transhipment, are
situated either within the territories of two High Contracting
Parties, or within the territory of a single High Contracting Party, if
there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the
sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority of another Power,
even though that Power is not a party to this Convention.”

This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons,

baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward. It applies equally to
gratuitous carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport undertaking.

For the purposes of this Convention, the expression international carriage

means any carriage in which, according to the agreement between the
parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or
not there be a break in the carriage or a transshipment, are situated
either within the territories of two High Contracting Parties or within
the territory of a single High Contracting Party if there is an agreed
stopping place within the territory of another State, even if that State
is not a High Contracting Party. Carriage between two points within the
territory of a single High Contracting Party without an agreed stopping place
within the territory of another State is not international carriage for the purposes
of this Convention.

Carriage to be performed by several successive air carriers is

deemed, for the purposes of this Convention, to be one undivided carriage if it
has been regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it had been
agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of contracts, and it
does not lose its international character merely because one contract or a series of
contracts is to be performed entirely within the territory of the same State.

There is international transportation within the contemplation of the

Warsaw Convention when:

1. The place of departure and the place of destination are within the
territories of two contracting countries regardless of whether or not
there was a break in the transportation or transshipment;
2. The place of departure and the place of destination are within the
territory of a single contracting country if there is an agreed stopping
place within a territory subject to the sovereignty, mandate, or
authority of another power, even though the power is not a party to
this Convention.

VIII. PERIOD COVERED BY INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION:

Under the Warsaw Convention, International Transportation means the

period during which the baggage or goods are in charge of the carrier, whether in
an airport or on board an aircraft, or, in the case of landing outside an airport, in
any place whatsoever.

Article 18
1. The carrier is liable for damages sustained in the event of the
destruction or loss of, or of damage to, any registered baggage or any
cargo, if the occurrence which caused the damage so sustained took
place during the carriage by air.
2. The carriage by air within the meaning of the preceding paragraph
comprises the period during which the baggage or cargo is in
charge of the carrier, whether in an aerodrome or on board
an aircraft, or, in the case of a landing outside an
aerodrome, in any place whatsoever.
3. The period of the carriage by air does not extend to any carriage by
land, by sea or by river performed outside an aerodrome. If,
however, such a carriage takes place in the performance of a
contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of loading,
delivery or trans-shipment, any damage is presumed,
subject to proof to the contrary, to have been the result of an
event which took place during the carriage by air.

Santos III vs Northwest Orient Airlines, et al:

However:
“ The Guatemala Protocol, 1971, boosted the limit to $100,000 per passenger.
Liability for baggage was increased to $1,000 and the right to bring suit was
expanded. However, the Supreme Court that Guatemala Protocol is still
ineffective.”

IX. LIABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL CARRIER UNDER WARSAW

CONVENTION.

Article 17 and 19:

The carrier is liable if the passenger’s injury was inflicted:

4. On board the aircraft;
 5. In the course of any of the operations of embarking;
6. In the course of disembarking;
7. When there was or because of delay

With respect to baggage or goods that are checked in, the carrier is liable if
damage occurred during air transportation or when there is delay.

X. MONTREAL AGREEMENT AND CAB RULES ON LIMIT OF

LIABILITY:

Section 15 of Economic Regulation No. 9.

Right to compensation in case of Death or Bodily Injury of a Passengers.

“ xxx the limit of liability for each passenger for death, wounding or other bodily
injury shall be the sum of Seventy-Five Thousand US Dolloars ( $75,000),
inclusive of legal fees and
costs xxx.

1996 Montreal Inter-Carrier Agreement

“ sum of Seventy-Five Thousand US Dollars ( $75,000 ). The liability under such

limit is
Independent of the negligence of the carrier.”

Note: This agreement is different from the Montreal Protocol that was entered into
in 1975.

XI. TARIFF LIMITATIONS:

British Airways vs Court of Appeals

It ruled that:
“ An air carrier is not liable for the loss of baggage in an amount in excess of the
limits specified in the tariff which was filed with the proper authorities, such
tariff being binding on the passenger regardless of the passenger’s lack of
knowledge thereof or assent thereto. This doctrine is recoginized in this
jurisdiction.”

XII. DEFENSES AGAINST LIMIT OF LIABILITY:

1. Willful misconduct;
2. Gross Negligence;
3. Absence of Baggage check;
4. If there was waiver on the part of the carrier;
5. If the carrier is estopped from invoking the provision on the limiting of
liability.
 Condition Elements Exception
1. An intentional act
or omission done
with conscious
Act or omission of awareness that
the carrier, agents such an act or
or servants of the omission was
carrier acting within wrongful;
the scope of his 2. An awareness of
If the airplane
Willful employment and the probable
was lost without
Misconduct done with intent to consequences of
a trace.
cause damage or an act or omission
recklessly and with and injury
knowledge that sustained;
would probably 3. A causal
reseult relationship
between the act or
omission and the
injury sustained.
Gross Wanton negligence
- -
Negligence and lack of care
Article 3 (2 ) of the
Warsaw Convention
states that carrier is
subject to unlimited
liability if it “
Absence of
accepts a passenger
Ticket /
without a passenger
Baggage
ticket having been
Check
delivered.” It should
be absolute non-
compliance and not
merely defective
compliance.
Article 4 par. 1
thereof provides
that “ for
transportation of
baggage, other than
small personal
objects of which the
passengers takes
Absence of charge himself, the
Baggage carrier must deliver
Check a baggage check.
Failure to deliver
the same, the carrier
shall not be entitled
to avail himself of
those provisions of
the Convention
which exclude or
limit the liability.”
XIII. TORT LIABILITY:
The Warsaw Convention does not provide for an exclusive enumeration of
instances when the Carrier is liable.

It does not provide for an absolute limit of liability and does not preclude
the application of the Civil Code and other pertinent local laws.

A complaint for quasi-delict can still be filed even if the filing is beyond the
prescriptive period provided for the convention so long as it is within the
prescriptive period of four years under Civil Code.

Alitalia vs Intermediate Appellate Court; United Airlines vs Uy

It ruled that:
“ The Convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the instances of
an airline’s liability, or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability xxx. The
convention’s provisions, in short, do not regulate or exclude liability for other
breaches of contract by the carrier or misconduct of its Officers and employees, or
some particular or exceptional type of damage”.

Pal vs Hon. Savillo; United Airlines vs Uy

It ruled that:
“ This court distinguished between (1) damage to the passengers baggage and (2)
humiliation he suffered at the hands of the airline’s employees. The first cause of
action was covered by the Warsaw Convention which prescribes in two years, while
the second was covered by the provision of Civil Code on torts, which prescribes in
four years.”

Condition Elements Exception

The benefits of
limited liability are
subject to waiver
Waiver such as when the air
carrier failed to raise
timely objections
during trial.
If the affirmative
cause of actions
were not denied by
the air carrier in any
of its pleadings nor
rebutted by way of
evidence presented
Estoppel
of the trial, and thus
in effect it judicially
admitted such facts.
( In Re Korean
Airlines Disaster,
704 F. Supp. 1135
(1988)
XIV. WARSAW CONVENTION AND TORT DISTINGUISHED

1. Claim form damages based solely on the delay where the plaintiff rented a van
as a consequence of the delay, the complaint would be barred by the two year
statute of limitation. ( Mahaney vs Air France )
2. Actions for damages for the “bumping off” itself, rather than the incidental
damage due to delay, fall outside the Warsaw Convention and do not
prescribed in two years.(Wolgel vs Mexican Airlines )
3. The emotional harm suffered by the private respondent as a result of having
been unreasonably and unjustly prevented from boarding the plane should
be distinguished from The actual damages which resulted from the same
incident. As such, emotional harms gives rise to the compensation where gross
negligence or malice is proven. Thus, the action cannot be dismissed based on
the statute of limitations provided under Article 29 of the Warsaw
Convention.( Pal vs Hon. Sivillo )
4. Airlines’ negligent act of reconfirming the passenger’s reservation days before
the departure but later discontinued is not among the acts covered by the
Warsaw Convention since the alleged negligence did not occur during the
performance of the contract of carriage but rather, days before the scheduled
flight. ( Lathigra vs British Airways )

XV. VENUE OF ACTION

Article 28 (1 ) of the Warsaw Convention, the plaintiff must bring the action for
damages before:

1. The court where the carrier is domiciled;

2. The court where the carrier has its principal place of business;
3. The court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract has
been made;
4. The court of the place of destination.

It is thus settled that allegations of tortuous conduct committed against an

airline passenger during the course of international carriage do not bring the case
outside the ambit of the Warsaw Convention.

XVI. NOTICE OF CLAIM:

Article 26 of the Warsaw Convention, complaint must be filed within the

following period:

1. Three days from receipt of the baggage; or

2. Seven days from receipt of goods; or
3. Fourteen days, in case of delay, counted from the time the baggage was placed
at the disposal of the passenger.

Note: The complaint or notice of claim is a condition precedent.

When not applicable.

1. Fraud on the part of the carrier.
2. If the delay to file the notice of claim can be attributed to the act or omission
of the carrier (Article 1186 of the New Civil Code.)

XVII. PRESCRIPTION
Article 29
1. The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within
two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from
the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date
on which the carriage stopped.
2. The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the
law of the Court seized of the case.

United Airlines vs Uy
It ruled that:
“ 2 year limitation incorporated in Article 29 as an absolute bar to suit and not to
be made subject to the various tolling provisions of the law of the forum. It was
intended only to let local laws determine whether an action had been commenced
within the two-year period, and within our jurisdiction our jurisdiction an action
shall be deemed commenced upon filing of the complaint.”

However:
Warsaw Convention does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier from
liability for damages for violating the rights of its passengers under the contract of
carriage, especially if willful misconduct on the part of the carrier’s employees is
found to or established. Hence, the two-year prescriptive period does not apply if
the cause of action is based on quasi-delict.

XVIII. SUCCESSIVE CARRIERS:

Article 1 (3) states that “transportation to be performed by several carriers shall be
deemed, for the purposes of this convention, to be one undivided transportation,
if it is has been regarded by the parties as a single operation”.

If the airline is member if IATA, the member is part of “a general pool

partnership agreement wherein they act as an agent of each other in the issuance
of tickets . In such a case, the issuing Airline which acted as an agent of the other
airlines would be liable because the various legs of the trip constitute a single
operation.

Lufthansa German Airlines vs Court of Appeals

It ruled that:
“ In the very nature nature of their contract, Lufthansa is clearly the principal in
the contract of Carriage with Antiporda and remains to be so, regardless of those
instances when the actual carriage was to be performed by various carriers. The
issuance of confirmed Lufthansa ticket in favor of Antiporda covering his entire
five-leg trip aboard successive carriers concretely attest to this”

XIX. LIABILITY OF AGENT:

The fact that a successive carrier is considered an agent does not necessarily
excuse the agent from liability. The agent is liable for its own negligent act or
omission in the performance of its duties.

American Airlines vs Court of Appeal

It ruled that:

“ The petitioner thereby assumed the obligation to take the place of the carrier
originally designated in the original conjunction ticket. The new ticket was simply,
a replacement for the the unused portion of the conjunction ticket, both tickets
being for the same amount and having the same point of departure and
destination. By constituting itself as an agent of the principal carrier the
petitioner’s undertaking should have been taken as part of a single operation under
the contract of carriage executed by the private respondent and the principal
carrier in Manila.”
XX. FORMALITIES:
The Warsaw Convention provides for the basic contents of the Passenger
Ticket, Baggage Check as well as the Airway Bill

XXI. EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions on the formality may result
in the non-application of the limit of liability. The absence of baggage check is
defense against the limit of liability ( PAL vs Court of Appeals )
MONTREAL CONVENTION
I.BACKGROUND

On May 28, 1991, International Civil Aviation further amended the Warsaw
Convention organized Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for
International Carriage by Air or known as The Montreal Convention. It amended
important provisions of the Warsaw Convention's regime concerning
compensation for the victims of air disasters. The Convention attempts to re-
establish uniformity and predictability of rules relating to the international
carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo.

The global ratification of Montreal Convention is an industry priority.

Montreal Convention gives consumers better protection and compensation and
facilitates faster air cargo shipments, while airlines enjoy greater certainty about
the rules affecting their liability.

This convention is more particularly relevant for international flights where

the places of departure and destination are located in different countries which are
State Parties to the convention.

Ratified by the Philippine Senate on 10 August 2015, and became effective

on 12 December 2015. To date, 132 of the 191 contracting states of International
Civil Aviation Organization are parties to the Montreal Convention

With the Philippines’ accession to Montreal Convention, it has the force and
effect of law in this country.

II. LIABILITY: DEATH OR BODILY INJURY

Article 17: The Carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily
injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death
or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations
of embarking or disembarking

Two- tiered liability

First Tier:
Airline Carrier is liable when damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of
a passenger on the condition that the accident which caused the death or injury
took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of
embarking or disembarking.

Second Tier:
For all damages higher than 113,100 SDRs the carrier shall be liable unless it can
show that:
1. the damage was not due to its negligence or wrongful act or omission;
2. or that the damage was solely due to the negligence or wrongful act or
omission of a third party.

III. LIABILITY: DAMAGE TO BAGGAGE

The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of destruction or loss of, or
of damage to, checked baggage upon condition only that the event which caused
the destruction, loss or damage took place on board the aircraft or during any
period within which the checked baggage was in the charge of the carrier. However,
the carrier is not liable if and to the extent that the damage resulted from the
inherent defect, quality or vice of the baggage. In the case of unchecked baggage,
including personal items, the carrier is liable if the damage resulted from its fault
or that of its servants or agents.

If the carrier admits the loss of the checked baggage, or if the checked
baggage has not arrived at the expiration of twenty-one days after the date on
which it ought to have arrived, the passenger is entitled to enforce against the
carrier the rights which flow from the contract of carriage.

IV. LIABILITY: DAMAGE TO CARGO

The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or
loss of, or damage to, cargo upon condition only that the event which caused the
damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air.

However, the carrier is not liable if and to the extent it proves that the
destruction, or loss of, or damage to, the cargo resulted from one or more of the
following:
A. Inherent defect, quality or vice of that cargo;
B. Defective packing of that cargo performed by a person other than the carrier
or its servants or agents;
C. An act of war or an armed conflict;
D. An act of public authority carried out in connection with the entry, exit or
transit of the cargo.

V. LIABILITY: DELAY
The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of
passengers, baggage or cargo. Nevertheless, the carrier shall not be liable for
damage occasioned by delay if it proves that it and its servants and agents took all
measures that could reasonably be required to avoid the damage or that it was
impossible for it or them to take such measures.
In the case of damage caused by delay as in the carriage of persons, the liability of
the carrier for each passenger is limited to 4 150 SDRs.

VI. LIMITATION: CARRIAGE OF BAGGAGE

The liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is
limited to 1 000 SDRs for each passenger unless the passenger has made, at the
time when the checked baggage was handed over to the carrier, a special
declaration of interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum
if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not
exceeding the declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the
passenger’s actual interest in delivery at destination.

VII. LIMITATION: CARRIAGE OF CARGO

The liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss, damage or delay is
limited to a sum of 17 SDRs per kilogramm, unless the consignor has made, at the
time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of
interest in delivery at destination and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so
requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the
declared sum, unless it proves that the sum is greater than the consignor’s actual
interest in delivery at destination.
VIII. NOTICE OF COMPLAINT

In case of damage to baggage:

The complainant must file his or her written complaint within seven (7) days
from the date of receipt of the checked-in baggage.

In case of damage to cargo

The complainant must files his or her written complaint within 14 days
from the date of receipt of the cargo.

IX. PRESCRIPTION
The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a
period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from
the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the
carriage stopped. The method of calculating that period shall be determined by the
law of the court seized of the case.

WARSAW VS. MONTREAL CONVENTION

WARSAW MONTREAL
CONVENTION CONVENTION
AS TO:
LIABILITY OF
CARRIER AND
EXTENT OF
COMPENSATION
FOR DAMAGES
IN CASE UNDER
ARTICLE 17 (1) 100 000
SPECIAL DRAWING
RIGHTS
BUT NOT EXCEEDING
100 000 SPECIAL
DRAWING RIGHTS IN
CASE OF CARRIER
A. PASSENGER 250,000 FRENCH SHOWS NO:
FRANCS
A. NEGLIGENCE OR
WRONGFUL ACT OR
OMISSION
B. NEGLIGENCE OR
WRONGFUL ACT OF
A THIRD PARTY
CASE OF DELAY, 4 150
SPECIAL DRAWING
RIGHTS
1. 1 000 SPECIAL
DRAWING RIGHTS,
B. BAGGAGE 500 FRENCH FRANCS UNLESS SPECIAL
CHECK PER PASSENGER DECLARATION AND
ADDITIONAL
PAYMENT HAS BEEN
MADE.
 1. 17 SPECIAL DRAWING
C. CARGO 250 FRENCH FRANCS
RIGHTS PER
PER KILOGRAM
KILOGRAM
AS TO:
TIMELY NOTICE
OF CLAIMS
A. PASSENGER 3 DAYS 7 DAYS
B. BAGGAGE 7 DAYS 14 DAYS
C. CARGO 14 DAYS 21 DAYS
VI. REFERENCES

Aquino, Timoteo. Essentials of Transportation and Public Utilities Law. Fourth

Edition. Rex Book Store, 2016.

Convention for the Unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by

air, 1929.

Warsaw Convention.

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air,
1999. Montreal Convention

International Civil Aviation Organization https://www.icao.int International

Air Transportation Association https://www.iata.org