- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-86/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona — Spain) — SL v Vueling Airlines SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Montreal Convention — Article 17(2) — Liability of air carriers in respect of checked baggage — Fact of loss of checked baggage established — Right to compensation — Article 22(2) — Limits of liability in the event of destruction, loss and delay of, or of damage to, baggage — Absence of information regarding the lost baggage — Burden of proof — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0086
62019CA0086
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
31.8.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 287/8
(Case C-86/19) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Montreal Convention - Article 17(2) - Liability of air carriers in respect of checked baggage - Fact of loss of checked baggage established - Right to compensation - Article 22(2) - Limits of liability in the event of destruction, loss and delay of, or of damage to, baggage - Absence of information regarding the lost baggage - Burden of proof - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
(2020/C 287/10)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: SL
Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 17(2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) of that convention, must be interpreted as meaning that the sum provided for in that latter provision as the limit of the air carrier’s liability in the event of destruction, loss and delay of, or of damage to, checked baggage which has not been the subject of a special declaration of interest in delivery constitutes a maximum amount of compensation which the passenger concerned does not enjoy automatically and at a fixed rate. Consequently, it is for the national court to determine, within that limit, the amount of compensation payable to that passenger in the light of the circumstances of the case.
2.Article 17(2) of the Montreal Convention, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of compensation due to a passenger, whose checked baggage which has not been the subject of a special declaration of interest in delivery has been destroyed, lost, damaged or delayed, must be determined by the national court in accordance with the applicable rules of national law, in particular in relation to evidence. Those rules must not, however, be any less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and must not be framed in such a way as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the Montreal Convention.
(*) Language of the case: Spanish.