The Montreal Convention, EU Regulation 261/2004, and the Sturgeon Doctrine: How to Reconcile the Three?

This article focuses on Sturgeon v. Condor Flugdienst and subsequent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as the ultimate example of Regulation 261/2004's failure to adequately address passenger rights in the framework of international air law and the confusing aftermath it has visited on European air law. The article opens with a brief overview of EU regulation of passenger rights, followed by an analysis of passenger rights regulation in the Montreal Convention. Next, the current issues that exist around the relationship between the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions and the regulation of passenger rights at the European level are discussed, followed by an analysis of the Sturgeon judgment and recent cases of the CJEU confirming it in light of international air law and constitutional EU law. The article concludes that the Regulation is flawed in light of international air law as well as in light of principles of EU law such as the separation of powers of the EU institutions, legal certainty, transparency, and legitimate expectations. In the author's view, the Court gave too much importance to the principle of equality to the detriment of international law and the other principles of EU law. The author prefers a thorough revision of the Regulation over drafting a new one to avoid repetition of the chaos that has resulted from the CJEU judgments.


  • English

Media Info

  • Media Type: Print
  • Features: References;
  • Pagination: pp 413-448
  • Serial:

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 01487154
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Jul 10 2013 10:24AM