Search

On 30 December 2019, the European Union (EU) and Euratom, of the one part, and the United Kingdom (UK) of the other part, concluded an Agreement on Trade and Cooperation following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. This agreement contains provisions on air transport, including the operation of traffic rights. It entered into force on 1 May 2020. The present essay will analyse the regulation of traffic rights in relation to the situation which governed the aviation relations between the two parties before said withdrawal, that is, the regime set forth by EU Regulation 1008/2008 on Common Rules for the Operation of Air Services in the Community. It will also look at the conduct of external aviation relations of the EU, while considering general air law provisions. In light of the previous state of the law, and similar arrangements made between jurisdictions aiming at the promotion of liberalization of trade and air services, it will be concluded that the restrictions on the operation of these traffic rights are relatively strict. Moreover, aviation, including traffic rights, has been approached in a rather pragmatic fashion, also meaning that the governance of the operation of air transport from an international and European law perspective has not always been appreciated. It is to be hoped that the parties will be able to establish a more liberal relationship in the future. Traffic rights, operation of air services, division of competencies, level playing field, fair competition, the EU internal market on air transport, air services agreements, the global framework

States have closed their national airspaces in the past for a variety of reasons which may pertain to environmental concerns, safety, security, politics or war. The global spreading of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus sheds a new light on closure of the airspace because, for the first time in the history of air law, measures are taken to protect the health of the resident population on a global scale. COVID-19, closure of airspace, national reflexes, sovereignty, European positions

This paper addresses the issue of principal place of business. Principal place of business can be interpreted in various ways in addition to its strict legal meaning in international air law. The term establishment is also relevant because since the Open Skies decisions of the European Court of Justice of 2002, this term has been used, although not reconciled with the existing aviation law regime. The interpretation of these terms is not only an academic exercise; airlines may be able to choose their hubs in relation to the meaning of their principal place of business, and exercise traffic rights from there. The same is true for the interpretation of the term establishment. Since airlines generate about 80% of their revenues from the operation of traffic rights, the choice of criteria for the determination of the term ‘principal place of businesses’ affecting role of airports as hubs under a modernised air law regime. This has practical relevance for the conduct of a future air transport policy.

[This article discusses the relationship between Eurocontrol, the European organization for the safety and efficiency of air traffic management, henceforth also referred to as ATM, and the EC. Until a few years ago, the two organizations carried out complementary tasks. Their fields of activity did not overlap. This changed in 1997 with the establishment of Eurocontrol's revised Convention and the coming into being of the Single European Sky regulations in 2004, which provided for the accession of the EC to Eurocontrol whilst enhancing the regulatory forces of standards made by the latter organization. These events in effect made the relationship competitive rather than complementary. Various arrangements regulate this relationship. A balanced cooperation has yet to be found., ]

This chapter discusses the regulatory regime governing the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). It is found that the operation of UAS under international, European and national law is only marginally regulated. Most international conventions do not take these operations into account while national and European regulators are attempting to fill the gaps. The authors believe that a comprehensive legal framework for the operation of these vehicles must be swiftly drawn up as it provokes questions pertaining to safety, security, market access, privacy and liability.

This chapter discusses a case which was decided by the Court of Appeal, la Cour d'appel , of Toulouse involving Airbus and Armavia Airlines. In it, important questions on the uniformity created by the Warsaw Convention of 1929, its exclusivity and the competency of courts as regulated by that convention were analysed. The chapter examines the proceedings of the case in the following order: establishment of the facts of the case; the initiation of legal proceedings; the claims made by Airbus; the position adopted by Armavia Airlines; the exclusivity of the Warsaw Convention; mandatory jurisdiction under the Warsaw Convention, and the Montreal Convention, 1999; and the decision of the Court of Appeal of Toulouse. Fortunately, the Court of Appeal followed the reasoning of Armenia Airlines. Hence, it gives support to the exclusivity of the Warsaw Convention and the mandatory nature of its rules on jurisdiction. Keywords: Airbus; Armavia Airlines; Court of Appeal of Toulouse; Montreal Convention; Warsaw Convention

Regulatory reform in international air transport legal aspects of commercial space activities aviation safety and security liability in international civil aviation Euro-Asian relationship of the future - space activities, aviation.

Looking for a global and corrective measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions frominternational civil aviation has been facing legal obstacles. These obstacles took the form ofconflicts of norms linked to the general challenge of the interactions between international aviationlaw, climate change law and the law of the European Union. Using evolutionary interpretation ofthe Chicago Convention in order to reconcile norms of substantive and institutional nature emergedas the best solution. However, this method perpetuates legal uncertainty and poses the generalchallenge of flexibly and elasticity of the Chicago Convention in response to the climate changechallenge. This study examines the above mentioned issues of interactions between legal ordersand provides recommendations to restore legal certainty needed to ensure sustainable developmentof international civil aviation. More specifically, this study reveals the underestimated relevance ofthe ongoing distinction between the legal regimes of air navigation and air transport, which is a keylegal element in the search for a global and corrective solution to the impact of international civilaviation on climate change.; La recherche d'une mesure mondiale et corrective des émissions de gaz à effet de serreafin de réduire l'impact de l'activité aérienne internationale sur les changements climatiques a étéconfrontée à l'émergence d'obstacles, sous forme de conflits de normes, liés au défi général del'interaction entre le droit international de l'aviation civile, le droit international des changementsclimatiques et le droit de l'Union européenne. La conciliation des normes matérielles etinstitutionnelles concernées, sur la base d'une interprétation évolutive de la convention de Chicago,est alors apparue comme l'unique solution pour remédier aux situations conflictuelles constatées.Le recours à cette démarche interprétative maintient néanmoins un climat d'insécurité juridique etpose la question des limites à l'adaptation du droit international de l'aviation civile au défi d'uneprotection du climat mondial. Ce travail d'analyse vise alors à démontrer qu'un recours à cettedémarche interprétative n'est pas toujours nécessaire et qu'une application rigoureuse de ladistinction intrinsèque au droit international de l'aviation civile séparant le domaine de lanavigation aérienne du domaine du transport aérien international est la clef du problème. Ellepermet en effet de proposer une solution corrective respectueuse des ordres juridiques fonctionnelsconcernés tout en rétablissant un climat de sécurité juridique indispensable au développementsoutenable de l'aviation civile internationale.

Looking for a global and corrective measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions frominternational civil aviation has been facing legal obstacles. These obstacles took the form ofconflicts of norms linked to the general challenge of the interactions between international aviationlaw, climate change law and the law of the European Union. Using evolutionary interpretation ofthe Chicago Convention in order to reconcile norms of substantive and institutional nature emergedas the best solution. However, this method perpetuates legal uncertainty and poses the generalchallenge of flexibly and elasticity of the Chicago Convention in response to the climate changechallenge. This study examines the above mentioned issues of interactions between legal ordersand provides recommendations to restore legal certainty needed to ensure sustainable developmentof international civil aviation. More specifically, this study reveals the underestimated relevance ofthe ongoing distinction between the legal regimes of air navigation and air transport, which is a keylegal element in the search for a global and corrective solution to the impact of international civilaviation on climate change.; La recherche d'une mesure mondiale et corrective des émissions de gaz à effet de serreafin de réduire l'impact de l'activité aérienne internationale sur les changements climatiques a étéconfrontée à l'émergence d'obstacles, sous forme de conflits de normes, liés au défi général del'interaction entre le droit international de l'aviation civile, le droit international des changementsclimatiques et le droit de l'Union européenne. La conciliation des normes matérielles etinstitutionnelles concernées, sur la base d'une interprétation évolutive de la convention de Chicago,est alors apparue comme l'unique solution pour remédier aux situations conflictuelles constatées.Le recours à cette démarche interprétative maintient néanmoins un climat d'insécurité juridique etpose la question des limites à l'adaptation du droit international de l'aviation civile au défi d'uneprotection du climat mondial. Ce travail d'analyse vise alors à démontrer qu'un recours à cettedémarche interprétative n'est pas toujours nécessaire et qu'une application rigoureuse de ladistinction intrinsèque au droit international de l'aviation civile séparant le domaine de lanavigation aérienne du domaine du transport aérien international est la clef du problème. Ellepermet en effet de proposer une solution corrective respectueuse des ordres juridiques fonctionnelsconcernés tout en rétablissant un climat de sécurité juridique indispensable au développementsoutenable de l'aviation civile internationale.