18.7.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/29

(Case C-258/16)

(2016/C 260/37)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

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?