Case C‑429/14

Air Baltic Corporation AS

v

Lietuvos Respublikos specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Montreal Convention — Articles 19, 22 and 29 — Liability of air carrier in the event of delay in the international carriage of passengers — Contract of carriage concluded by the passengers’ employer — Damage caused by delay — Damage suffered by the employer’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 February 2016

1. International agreements — Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air — Interpretation — Court’s jurisdiction to interpret provisions thereof

   (Montreal Convention 1999)

2. Transport — Air transport — Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air — Consumers in air transport — Concept — Different from the concept of passenger

   (Montreal Convention 1999, Art. 1(1))

3. Transport — Air transport — Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air — Liability of air carrier in the event of delay in the international carriage of passengers — Contract of carriage concluded by the air carrier and the passengers’ employer — Employer’s entitlement to compensation — Lawfulness — Scope

   (Montreal Convention 1999, Arts 1(2), 3(5), 19, 22, 25, 29 and 33(1))

1.  The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention), concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, was signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and then approved on its behalf by the Council on 5 April 2001. It entered into force, so far as the European Union is concerned, on 28 June 2004. It follows that the provisions of the Montreal Convention have been an integral part of the European Union legal order from the date on which it entered into force and that, consequently, the Court has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling concerning its interpretation, it being understood that that convention was drawn up in French, English, Arabic, Chinese, Spanish and Russian, with all six language versions being authentic.

   With regard to such an interpretation, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which codifies general international law and is binding on the European Union, states that a treaty is to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

   (see paras 22-24)

2.  Article 1(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999 and signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999, then approved on its behalf by the Council on 5 April 2001, should be interpreted in the light of the third recital in the preamble to that convention, which emphasises the importance of ensuring protection of the interests of consumers in international carriage by air, it being understood that the concept of ‘consumer’ for the purposes of that convention should not be confused with the concept of ‘passenger’, but may include persons who are not themselves carried and are therefore not passengers.

   Given that objective, the lack of reference in the wording of Article 1(1) of the Montreal Convention to persons who retain the services of an international air carrier for the purpose of carriage of their employees as passengers cannot be construed as excluding those persons from the scope of application of that convention and, consequently, any damage they may suffer in association therewith.

   (see paras 38, 39)

3.  The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded at Montreal on 28 May 1999, in particular Articles 19, 22 and 29 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which has concluded a contract of international carriage with an employer of persons carried as passengers is liable to that employer for damage occasioned by a delay in flights on which its employees were passengers pursuant to that contract, on account of which the employer incurred additional expenditure.

   It is apparent from a number of converging provisions of the Montreal Convention that it establishes a link between the air carrier’s liability, on the one hand, and the presence of a contract of international carriage concluded by that air carrier and another party, on the other; whether or not that other party itself is a passenger or not is of no particular relevance for the purposes of the carrier’s liability potentially being engaged in connection with that contract.

   Moreover, it follows from the requirement that liability be limited ‘for each passenger’, provided for in Article 22(1) that convention, that the amount of damages which may be awarded to the person who has brought proceedings for compensatory damages resulting from a delay in the international carriage of passengers cannot, in any event, exceed the amount obtained by multiplying the limit laid down in Article 22(1) of the Montreal Convention by the number of passengers carried under the contract concluded by that person and the air carrier or carriers concerned.

   (see paras 41, 48, 49, 52, operative part)