INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW because on the one hand the courts of the EU Member States are bound by the interpretation of the CJEU, but on the other hand the courts in the other contracting states to the Convention are not prevented from adhering to their previous established case law – which they will probably do in particular if the CJEU, as in the case at hand, does not even remotely provide a comprehensible justification for its divergent interpretation. In this way, the CJEU undermines the aim of these conventions, which is to create globally uniform regulations and thus international legal certainty in their area of application. It is therefore not surprising that AG Emiliou explicitly recommends to the CJEU in his recent opinion in another pending preliminary ruling on the concept of accident under the MC, that, ’since the Court is but one of many jurisdictions throughout the world that are competent to interpret the Montreal Convention, and since the uniform application of that convention in all States Parties is an aim to be pursued, it is appropriate for the Court to duly take into account, and give the required weight, to the decisions handed down by the courts of those States Parties’.38 The CJEU in JR v. Austrian Airlines ruling thus appears to be a (potentially serious) ‘accident’39 in the CJEU’s jurisprudence. 38 AG CJEU, opinion of 12.01.2023 in case C-510/21 – DB v. Austrian Airlines, margin 38. 39 Meaning: ‘an unforeseen, harmful and involuntary event’ (CJEU, judgement of 19.12.2019 in case C-532/18 – Niki Luftfahrt).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==