milad soltani; Bahram Taghipour; Alireza Salehifar
Abstract
Despite the importance and numerous implications of determining a competent court in claims relating to the liability of air carriers, the criteria set forth in the Warsaw and Montreal documents are ambiguous, and each country offers its own internal interpretation that, in addition to the principle ...
Read More
Despite the importance and numerous implications of determining a competent court in claims relating to the liability of air carriers, the criteria set forth in the Warsaw and Montreal documents are ambiguous, and each country offers its own internal interpretation that, in addition to the principle of uniformity. These documents are in conflict, making it difficult to determine the competent court. Given that the determination of a competent court leads to the identification of the substantive law and the form governing the litigation, this ambiguity in the court's judgment causes us to be incapable of recognizing the substantive and formal law. Moreover, due to the special requirements of air transport and ideals such as the protection of the users of the industry, it is as if its rules, with a break with tradition, are inconsistent with what is called certain principles. Updated and crystallized. One of these cases is the recognition of a competent court, which ignores the will power of individuals in determining it, and the plaintiff can only sue in limited and predetermined countries. A will that is respected in other modes of transport, including maritime transport rights. Accordingly, it is necessary to first explain the criteria for the place of residence of the carrier, the main place of work of the carrier, the place of work of the contractor and the court of destination; Because their recognition leads to the identification of the formal and substantive law in lawsuits related to the responsibility of the transport operator.
