Worldwide: Aviation And Aerospace Newsletter - August 2015

Last Updated: 20 August 2015
Article by Clyde & Co LLP

RATIFICATION OF THE CAPE TOWN CONVENTION BY THE UNITED KINGDOM

By Mark Bisset

On 27 July 2015 the United Kingdom's instruments of ratification to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment 2001 and the Protocol thereto on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment 2001 (together for the purposes of this article the "Cape Town Convention") were deposited with UNIDROIT. The Convention and the Aircraft Protocol will enter into force in the United Kingdom on 1 November 2015. The ratification by the United Kingdom of the Cape Town Convention serves as an interesting example of how a contracting state faces the legal and policy issues arising from the implementation of the Convention.

Introduction

The Cape Town Convention is the result of a remarkable effort by states to establish a commercially-oriented international legal framework that governs the creation, registration, priority, search and enforcement of security and leasing interests in aircraft. It has been ratified to date by 58 states (now 59 following UK ratification; in addition the EU has ratified in respect of its areas of competence) including major aviation jurisdictions such as the United States, China, India, Ireland, Russia and the UAE. There are important economic benefits from becoming a contracting state to the Cape Town Convention; aircraft operators increase their ability to obtain additional – and less costly – sources of financing in the market due to a reduction of legal risks, and not surprisingly, many have encouraged their states to become parties to it.

One fundamental aspect of the Cape Town Convention is that it is a tailor-made instrument that allows contracting states to make declarations on several key provisions (i.e. non-consensual liens, relationship with the 1933 Rome Convention, internal transactions, territorial units, remedies, pre-existing interests or rights and certain other provisions). The declarations that a contracting state makes can greatly enhance or diminish the Cape Town Convention's economic impact. For example, an aircraft operator (and, if different, the borrower/ buyer or lessor) may qualify for a reduction of export credit costs provided that the corresponding contracting state has made the recommended "qualifying declarations" set out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Aircraft Sector Understanding (ASU).

As part of the UK's ratification and implementation effort the Government invited stakeholders in the UK to be part of a consultation process and its results were published in March 2015 together with an impact assessment and a draft of regulations to implement the Cape Town Convention. Parties that submitted responses included manufacturers, lessors, airlines, legal practitioners and non-governmental organisations.

The Government analysed each of the responses and then explained the legal and policy considerations that it took into account in adopting a particular implementation option. One key consideration was to comply with the ASU export credit discount criteria by making the appropriate declarations in the Cape Town Convention so that eligible operators in the UK may be able to benefit from the discount.

Although the Cape Town Convention reflects basic concepts of English law, partly because of the central role that the UK played in its negotiations and at the diplomatic conference in which the instrument was concluded, its ratification and implementation by the UK involves addressing a number of issues. The UK signed the Cape Town Convention in 2001 so the ratification process has taken over a decade, partly because certain elements of the Convention which touch on the EU's jurisdiction were required to be addressed by the EU first (such as insolvency provisions). By EU Council Decision 2009/370/EC the EU ratified the Convention in April 2009 in so far as it has competency over the relevant subject of the Convention / Aircraft Protocol. The United Kingdom made declarations under Articles 39(1)(a)-(b), 39(4), 52, 53 and 54(2) of the Convention, and under Articles XXIX, XXX(1), XXX(2) and XXX(3) of the Aircraft Protocol.

As a result of ratification by the UK the Convention will become effective in certain offshore jurisdictions which are of significance in aviation: for example, the Convention is now due to come into force in the Cayman Islands on 1 November 2015 at the same time as the Convention takes effect in the UK.

Retention of non-consensual liens

Under English law, aircraft may be detained (and sold) to cover unpaid airport charges and air navigation charges incurred by an operator. These debts take priority over any security that a creditor may have over the aircraft and, most worryingly for parties holding an interest over them, the rules allow an aircraft to be detained to cover unpaid charges of an entire fleet (the "fleet lien" under Section 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982).

One of the main purposes of the Cape Town Convention is to establish a first-to-file priority based registration system for interests over an aircraft that is readily viewable by interested parties. Therefore, the fact that a set of third parties can detain an aircraft without registering their interests, and regardless as to whether there are other parties with prior interests registered with the international registry set up by the Convention, diminishes the very legal certainty that the Cape Town Convention hopes to provide. However, Article 39 of the Convention allows contracting states to make a declaration whereby non-consensual liens have priority over a registered international interest created under the terms of the Cape Town Convention. Therefore, by making the appropriate declaration, a contracting state that already has such provision in its laws is able to retain it under the Cape Town Convention.

The "fleet lien" has been strongly criticised by legal practitioners and academics, and many saw the ratification of the Cape Town Convention as an opportunity to repeal it. Indeed, respondents to the consultation raised their concerns by stating that the "fleet lien" is a draconian compliance mechanism that unjustly affects aircraft lessors and financiers. However, while noting the concerns regarding the potential impact of the fleet lien on third parties, the Government decided to grant all existing and future non-consensual rights that have priority under English law over a mortgage or lease the same priority over an international interest, including the fleet lien, and will, therefore, make the appropriate declaration. This is reflected in the implementing Regulations (the International Interests in Aircraft Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Regulations 2015).

Insolvency remedies

The Cape Town Convention contains alternative provisions in respect of insolvency remedies available to creditors. Article XI enables the contracting state which is the "primary insolvency jurisdiction" to specify a "waiting period" at the end of which the insolvency administrator or the debtor must give up possession of the relevant aircraft or engine to the creditor, unless the insolvency administrator or the debtor has cured all defaults and agreed to perform all future obligations under the relevant agreement. The main advantage of adopting Alternative A is that by stipulating a waiting period, together with the availability of remedies to de-register and export aircraft from the state where it is situated, creditors may be assured that in an event of default scenario the aircraft or engine can be recovered within a fixed period.

Alternative A essentially permits creditors to exercise selfhelp remedies and is much more flexible than Alternative B which is a more restrictive, court-based approach. This alternative allows for greater involvement of courts in line with civil law tradition. Finally, in the absence of a declaration of a contracting state as to which alternative it chooses, the remedies on insolvency are governed by applicable law.

Alternative A is, not surprisingly, favoured by lessors and financiers and is also required by the ASU discount criteria. The majority of stakeholders in their responses called for the Government to adopt Alternative A in the implementation of the Cape Town Convention. However, insolvency practitioners stated that English law insolvency rules are robust and well understood by parties and therefore there was no need to implement Alternative A; national insolvency rules should then be retained.

In the end, and in a departure from its initial position, the Government decided to adopt Alternative A based on the fact that (i) there are potential economic benefits for aircraft finance associated with the adoption of such alternative (i.e. it complies with the ASU discount criteria) and (ii) aircraft are a sufficiently unique type of asset that warrants a separate administration regime. Therefore, Alternative A is reflected in the Regulations and a 60-day "waiting period" was adopted as well, all in line with the ASU discount criteria.

Lex situs and the international interest

Under English law, the lex situs principle, as clarified by the (in)famous 2010 Blue Sky case, is used to determine whether a security interest has been validly constituted over an aircraft. This means in practice that in order for an English law security interest to be validly constituted over an aircraft, the aircraft needs to be physically located in England (or airspace over England) at the time of taking the mortgage. This has substantial practical implications when choosing English law as applicable law and can potentially increase the parties' transaction costs.

The Cape Town Convention seeks to exclude the application of conflict of laws when creating interests over aircraft. Therefore, the fact that the lex situs is applied under English law conflicts with this very goal because under the Cape Town Convention an international interest is constituted over an aircraft once the Convention's (straightforward) validity conditions are satisfied without taking into account national laws. Therefore, the UK had to address this crucial matter in the implementation of the Cape Town Convention.

The Government, in line with the provisions of the Cape Town Convention, declared that an international interest is a proprietary right that takes effect in law once the conditions for the creation and registration of an international interest are satisfied, effectively distinguishing an interest created under the Cape Town Convention from other interests created outside it. As a result, the validity of a security interest under English law which is not an international interest would still be determined by the application of lex situs. This interpretation is included in the Regulations, regulation 6 of which provides: "an international interest has effect where the conditions of the [Cape Town] Convention are satisfied (with no requirement to determine whether a proprietary right has been validly created or transferred pursuant to the common law lex situs rule)".

Irrevocable de-registration and export request authorisation

The Cape Town Convention sets out provisions in relation to an irrevocable de-registration and export request authorisation (IDERA) which allows the person in whose favour the authorisation has been issued to exercise the remedies available to it. Contracting States are able to make a declaration as to whether this provision applies and such a declaration is mandatory in order to obtain the benefit of the ASU discount qualifying criteria.

The Government acknowledged that under English law a power of attorney can be issued by the debtor and that therefore making a declaration to apply the IDERA provision was not altogether necessary. Nevertheless, the Government decided to apply the IDERA provisions. Under the Regulations, the UK's Civil Aviation Authority must honour a request for de-registration filed with it but subject to any applicable safety laws and regulations. The CAA will provide further guidance on this matter.

Conclusion

The UK is ratifying and implementing the Cape Town Convention in such a way that it achieves its maximum effect i.e. reducing legal risk by having an international framework under which aircraft financiers can better predict outcomes, and thus allowing operators in the UK to obtain financing on more favourable terms. In depositing the instruments of ratification at UNIDROIT Mr Jonathan Marshall, the Justice and Home Affairs Counsellor at the British Embassy in Rome, stated: "The United Kingdom's approach to the ratification of treaties on private law matters is known for being highly prudent and pragmatic". The Secretary-General said at the occasion: "We see in the United Kingdom ratification of the Cape Town Convention and the Aircraft protocol another demonstration of both the high quality of this Convention as well as the tangible economic benefits it generates."

Moreover, by the UK's having made all the ASU "qualifying declarations", operators in the UK should be able to benefit from the export credit discount. This is, however, provided that the "home country" rule is not applicable. This rule, which dates back to 1992, is an unwritten, informal understanding among the four principal ECAs supporting the manufacturers of large commercial jet aircraft: Export- Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank); Export Credits Guarantee Department (UK); Compagnie Française d'Assurance pour le Commerce Extérieur, also known as COFACE (France); and Euler Hermes (Germany). These agencies agreed not to provide financing for competing aircraft that will be principally located in their own or in each other's countries (including, for this purpose, Spain).

Although the Government stated that it evaluated the impact of each of the implementation options separately and on their own merit, it seems that the rationale behind the Government's choices was to effectively comply with the ASU criteria, as other contracting states to the Cape Town Convention have done. Unfortunately, however, because of the "home country" rule, it is unlikely that most UK airlines will be able to benefit from the export credit discount that follows from compliance with the ASU criteria.

This article was written with the assistance of Gustavo Boccardo, who was recently awarded his LLM in air and space law cum laude by Leiden University, while on an internship with the firm.

WHO IS A PASSENGER?

By Tina Collier

The question of who is a passenger on an aircraft may at first sight seem relatively straightforward. When we think of a passenger, we envisage a person who has purchased an airline ticket for a round trip or a single flight.

However, there are some different scenarios that call into question who a passenger on board an aircraft actually is. For example, where a person on board is a member of the operating crew (including e.g. student pilots), cabin crew or supernumerary crew, or indeed who is otherwise employed on the aircraft (e.g. a helicopter winchman), there is general agreement that they are not a passenger for the purposes of the international conventions relating to carriage by air (namely the Warsaw Convention 1929, the Hague Protocol 1955 and the Montreal Convention 1999). In respect of the latter category, being otherwise employed on an aircraft has been held to include the situation where the person's primary duties may not be intended to occur on the aircraft. For example, a maintenance representative employed to deal with procedures to be followed while the aircraft is on the ground at each stop, but who is also available during each flight should anything occur, would not therefore be classed as a passenger.

Herd v Clyde Helicopters

The question of who is a passenger arose in the 1996/97 Scottish case of Herd v Clyde Helicopters Ltd, which went all the way to the House of Lords. In that case, a police sergeant employed by the Strathclyde Police Authority was on a surveillance helicopter flight when it crashed and he was killed. It was the Police Authority that had contracted with the air carrier for the contract of carriage, not the sergeant, and the sergeant was clearly not an employee of the air carrier. The question before the court was whether he was a passenger under the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 (this being a domestic flight) and therefore fell within the Warsaw Convention 1929 as amended by the Hague Protocol 1955, which was applied to qualifying domestic flights by the 1967 Order.

The House of Lords held (as had the First Instance and Appeal courts) that for the application of the 1967 Order it was not necessary for a person to be carried under a contract to which he was a party or under a contract of any particular type (the ticketing requirements of the Warsaw Convention 1929 not having been carried over into the 1967 Order). The sergeant was on board the helicopter for the purpose of carrying out his police duties and had no responsibility for the operation of the helicopter. He was therefore properly regarded as a passenger. There was no relationship between the carrier and the sergeant, other than that of carrier and carried.

If the sergeant had been employed directly by the air carrier to carry out employment duties on behalf of the air carrier (or had been part of the operating crew), then he would not have been a passenger. However, there was a contract of carriage between the Police Authority and the air carrier, and the sergeant was being carried pursuant to that contract. This was enough to put him within the realms of being a passenger.

Wucher and Euro-Aviation v Santer– Austrian Proceedings

The issue of who is a passenger was the subject of a recent (26 February 2015) preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU. The Supreme Court in Austria had referred the case of Wucher Helicopter GmbH and Euro- Aviation Versicherung AG v Fridolin Santer (C-6/14) to the CJEU in order to clarify a number of questions relating to who is a passenger on board an aircraft.

In this case, Mr Santer was employed by his employer, Ötztaler Gletscherbahn-GmbH & Co. KG, as a member of the avalanche commission responsible for safety in the glacier area of Sölden in Austria and his employer's ski pistes. Mr Santer had to decide which pistes must be closed and where avalanches needed to be blasted. Blasting was to be carried out from a helicopter, and for this purpose Ötztaler had entered into a contract of carriage with the air carrier (Wucher); a contractual situation similar to that in Herd, albeit in this case related to Austrian rather than UK domestic carriage.

Mr Santer's duties as a "guide familiar with the terrain" on board the helicopter included directing the pilot (who was employed by the air carrier) to the places where the explosive charges were to be thrown out. Mr Santer was also required to open the helicopter door during the flight at the pilot's direction and to hold it open for a particular period of time so that the person sitting behind him could throw out the charge. During this procedure on the incident flight a sudden gust of wind caught the slightly open door, causing it to fly open. Mr Santer was unable to let go of the door and as a consequence seriously injured his elbow. Mr Santer's claim was against the air carrier (Wucher) and the air carrier's insurer (Euro-Aviation).

The First Instance Austrian court held that Mr Santer was a passenger on the flight. However, the Appellate court held that Mr Santer was not a passenger within the Montreal Convention, since the purpose of the flight was the blasting of avalanches rather than to carry him from one place to another. However, Austrian law was not precluded from applying to Mr Santer's claim for compensation.

On appeal by Wucher and Euro-Aviation the Supreme Court considered that whether or not Mr Santer was a passenger was a crucial question as to whether the Montreal Convention applied to Mr Santer's claim for compensation. The Supreme Court chose to clarify certain questions with the CJEU, with the intention of obtaining a common understanding of the concept of "passenger" in EU law and in the Montreal Convention.

Wucher and Euro-Aviation v Santer– CJEU ruling

The essential question referred was whether Mr Santer, on the facts discussed above, was a passenger or ranked among "on-duty members of both the flight crew and the cabin crew". This raised issues related to the definition of "passenger" within the meaning of EU Regulation 785/2004, which imposes insurance obligations on air carriers and aircraft operators (such as Wucher), and Article 3(g) of that Regulation, which defines a "passenger" as: "...any person who is on a flight with the consent of the air carrier or the aircraft operator, excluding on-duty members of both the flight crew and the cabin crew". If Mr Santer fell within this definition and was a passenger, or indeed even if he fell outside this definition and was not a passenger, the Austrian court then wanted to know whether he was a passenger for the purposes of Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention.

The CJEU first turned to the definition of "passenger" within the Regulation and held that Article 3(g) of the Regulation, classifying a person as a member of the flight crew and the cabin crew, is an exception to the rule that the person on board is a passenger. Such exceptions are to be interpreted strictly, so that general rules are not negated. Mr Santer did not perform tasks of the flight crew. His task of opening the helicopter door also did not confer on Mr Santer the status of being a member of the cabin crew. Indeed, the CJEU stated that the pilot, as commander on board, is always authorised to give instructions to any of those on board the aircraft, including passengers, so this fact did not mean that Mr Santer was part of the cabin crew.

Therefore, the CJEU found that Mr Santer was a passenger for the purposes of Article 3(g) of the Regulation. It went on to say that Article 3(g) must be interpreted as meaning that the occupant of a helicopter operated by a Community air carrier, who is carried on the basis of a contract (of carriage) between that air carrier and the occupant's employer in order to perform a specific task such as that at issue in the main proceedings, is a "passenger" within the meaning of that provision.

To answer the question relating to the Montreal Convention, the CJEU recognised that the Montreal Convention is an integral part of the EU legal order, and that it (the CJEU) has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the Convention. The CJEU considered that it must be ascertained whether the purpose of the flight at issue was the "carriage of passengers" within the meaning of the Convention, and expressed the view that the absence of documents of carriage did not affect the existence or validity of the contract of carriage.

Therefore, where a contract of carriage exists and all the other conditions for the application of the Convention (i.e. pursuant to Article 1 and the scope of application) are fulfilled, it applies, irrespective of the form that contract of carriage might take. The flight in question was one for the carriage of employees of Ötztaler (of whom Mr Santer was one) to the places where they had to perform their usual tasks. It was precisely on a contractual basis (that being the contract of carriage between the air carrier and Ötztaler) that the air carrier flew Mr Santer from the take-off location to the places where the avalanche blasting was to take place and then brought him back to the take-off location.

The CJEU therefore held that Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as meaning that a person who comes within the definition of "passenger" under Article 3(g) of EU Regulation 785/2004 also comes within the definition of "passenger" under Article 17(1) of the Convention, once that person has been carried on the basis of a "contract of carriage" (within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention).

This finding of the CJEU is consistent with the conclusion of the House of Lords in Herd and is a welcome clarification at an EU-wide level of who is a passenger for the purposes of the Montreal Convention.

To continue reading this Newsletter, please click here.

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.

Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.