(Case C-6/14, Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26th
February 2015, request for a preliminary ruling from the
Oberster Gerichtshof - Austria)
On 26th February 2015, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice
of the European Union (ECJ) handed down a judgment in a preliminary
ruling regarding the interpretation of article 3(g) of the
Regulation (EC) No. 785/2004, "on insurance requirements
for air carriers and aircraft operators", and article 17,
par. 1, of the Montreal Convention requested by the
ObersterGerichtshof, the Austrian Supreme
The dispute submitted to the Austrian Supreme Court consisted in
a claim for compensation brought by Mr. Santer against the Austrian
air carrier Wucher Helicopter GmbH and its insurance company.
Mr. Santer is employed by Ötztaler Gletscherbahn-GmbH &
Co. KG (in short Ötztaler), a company which manages a ski area
in the west of Austria, and is responsible for the safety in the
glacier area and the slopes. In particular, he decides when
avalanches need to be blasted. The blasting of avalanches is
carried out from a helicopter.
More precisely, during an "avalanche blasting flight",
Mr. Santer as occupant of a helicopter of the defendant, which had
a formal contract of carriage with Ötztaler, was seriously
The judicial proceedings came before the Austrian Supreme Court,
which posed the question whether Mr. Santer is to be considered a
"passenger" essential for the application of the
liability regime of the Montreal Convention.
In fact, as this flight was carried out for a specific purpose
it was not easy to identify the status of the claimant. Mr. Santer
flew as a "guide familiar with the terrain" and had to
open the helicopter door at the pilot's command and hold it
open in a specific manner and for a particular period of time,
during which his assistants had to throw the explosives from the
It is worth stressing that, as pointed out by the Austrian
Supreme Court, there was no Court of Justice case law in which it
defined the concept of "passenger" under the Montreal
Firstly, the ECJ affirmed that Mr. Santer did not fall under the
category of "member of the cabin crew", since the pilot
is always authorized to give instructions to anyone on board the
aircraft, including passengers.
In this regard, it must be remembered that art. 3(g) of the EU
Regulation 785/2004 identifies two categories:
"passenger" and "on-duty members of the crew".
The first category includes any person who is on a flight with the
consent of the air carrier, excluding on-duty members of both the
flight crew and the cabin crew, who belong to the second category.
The Court clarified that a third category is not contemplated.
Having said that, the ECJ declared that an occupant of a
helicopter, who is carried on the basis of a contract between the
air carrier and the occupant's employer in order to perform a
specific task, therefore, must be considered a passenger within the
meaning under Regulation No. 785/2004.
Secondly, the ECJ had to ascertain if a person, who falls within
the meaning of "passenger" in art. 3(g) of the EU
Regulation 785/2004, also falls under the corresponding category
established by art. 17 of the Montreal Convention.
First of all, the Court dispelled quickly the matter about its
jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling concerning the
interpretation of the Montreal Convention. The ECJ indeed affirmed
that the Montreal Convention forms an integral part of the European
Union legal order and the principle is well founded in its
Even if Mr. Santer had to perform a specific task, there was a
"contract of carriage" within the meaning of art. 3 of
the Montreal Convention, whose objective was to carry him and other
Ötztaler employees from the take-off location to where they
had to perform their tasks and then bring them back to the take-off
So, if there is a contract of carriage within the meaning of
art. 3 of the Montreal Convention, a person who has the status of
"passenger" in accordance with art. 3(g) of Regulation
No. 785/2004 comes also within the definition of
"passenger" pursuant to art. 17 of the aforementioned
In other words, where a passenger with the characteristics
identified by the Court, and who falls within the definition of
passenger as per the Montreal Convention, legislation such as
articles 17 (Death and Injury of Passengers and following articles)
and article 35, among others (Limitation of Actions) of the
Convention will be applied.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
What sectors will face the biggest challenges in 2016/2017 in the UK & Europe? This series offers industry insights, real time updates, analysis of the market and key considerations for stakeholders to emerge stronger.
It is common practice for traders, usually when they are the sellers of the goods and the charterers of a vessel, to instruct the carrier to discharge cargoes without production of the original bills of lading and to agree to indemnify the carrier against the consequences of doing so.
As you may be aware, one of South Korea's largest shipowners, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd ("Hanjin"), has applied for court rehabilitation in Korea.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).