Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3). This regulation repealed Regulation No 2407/92 with effect from 1 November 2008.

As regards actions for damages relating to accidents that have occurred during carriage by air, this convention exclusively governs the determination of the court having jurisdiction and some substantive aspects of compensation in the event of death or injury of passengers. If, however, the Montreal Convention is not applicable, the court with jurisdiction will be determined in accordance with the Brussels I Regulation and that court will examine the claim for damages pursuant to the rules of national law as decided by the conflict rules. I also note that, in the light of the circumstances of the case before the referring court, Mr Brodnig was not required to have an air carrier licence. I am therefore of the opinion that, should the Court consider that the Montreal Convention and Regulation No 2027/97 apply in the main proceedings, the court with jurisdiction to entertain the main action should be determined pursuant to Article 33 of that convention.

What Is a NEMA 14-50 Outlet?

Article 18 of the Rome II Regulation does not constitute a conflict-of-laws rule with respect to the substantive law applicable to the determination of the liability of the insurer or the liable party. The sole aim of this article is to determine which law applies to the question as to whether the victim can bring a claim directly against the insurer, and does not concern the extent of the insurer or the liable party’s obligations. Convention 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 (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38; ‘the Montreal Convention’). The Montreal Convention entered into force, so far as the European Community is concerned, on 28 June 2004.

Are Article 7(1)(f) of Second … Directive [88/357/EEC ( 9)] … and Article 18 of [the Rome II] Regulation … to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions governing the direct action brought by the injured party referred to in Question 1 against the civil-liability insurer of the person responsible for the injury are to be determined on the basis of the law of a third State if: This request is interesting for two reasons from the standpoint of EU law. First, it affords the Court the opportunity to define the boundaries of the scope of both the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ( 2) and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 ( 3) which implements that convention. Second, it allows the Court to determine the scope of Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, ( 4) which concerns direct action against the insurer of the liable party. If you live in an older home, it’s possible that your electrical system isn’t up to code or doesn’t have the capacity to support modern appliances, like a dryer, that require more power. In this case, you might need to have a NEMA 14-50 outlet installed so that you can use these appliances without overloading your electrical system.

Thông tin bổ sung

That isn't entirely the case. These particular kmods embed the kernel version in the name identifier. So they inherently become installonly since they are on different version streams. Article 33 of the Montreal Convention determines which courts have jurisdiction to entertain actions for damages brought under that convention.

Multiply the divisor by the result in the previous step (14 x 7 = 98) and write the answer at the bottom: In view of the foregoing, I consider that Articles 1 and 3(1) of Regulation No 2027/97 must be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of the Montreal Convention do not apply to a national flight that is not operated by an air carrier holding an operating licence within the meaning of Regulation No 1008/2008. Subtract the result in the previous step from the first digit of the dividend (2 - 0 = 2) and write the answer below. I note that the Montreal Convention applies, in accordance with Article 1(1) thereof, to all ‘ international [ ( 11)] carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft’.Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that an injured party may bring a direct action against the insurer of the liable party when the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation so provides, regardless of the provision made by the law that the parties have chosen as the law applicable to the insurance contract. By its fourth question submitted for a preliminary ruling, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 18 of the Rome II Regulation allows the injured party to bring a direct action against the insurer, when the law applicable to the non-contractual obligation provides for such an action but the parties to the insurance contract have made a different choice of law. The flight in question is therefore not covered by the provisions of Regulation No 2027/97 or by those of the Montreal Convention, since it was a national flight that was not operated by a licensed air carrier. Accordingly, the claim for damages at issue must be examined solely on the basis of the applicable national law determined by the conflict rules.