Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62016CN0258

    Case C-258/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

    OJ C 260, 18.7.2016, p. 29–30 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    18.7.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 260/29

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

    (Case C-258/16)

    (2016/C 260/37)

    Language of the case: Finnish

    Referring court

    Korkein oikeus

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Finnair Oyj

    Defendant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

    Questions referred

    1.

    Is Article 31(4) of the Montreal Convention to be interpreted as meaning that, to preserve a right of action, it is necessary, in addition to giving notice of a complaint in due time, that the complaint be made in writing within the times provided for under Article 31(3)?

    2.

    If, to preserve a right of action, a complaint must be made in writing in due time, is Article 31(3) of the Montreal Convention to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of writing may be fulfilled in an electronic procedure and also by the registration of the damage in the information system of the carrier?

    3.

    Does the Montreal Convention preclude an interpretation by which the requirement of writing is regarded as fulfilled where, with the knowledge of the passenger, a representative of the carrier records in writing the notice of complaint/the complaint either on paper or electronically in the carrier’s system?

    4.

    Does Article 31 of the Montreal Convention subject a complaint to further substantive requirements than that of giving notice to the carrier of the damage sustained?
    Top