THE 2017 STF DECISION; WHAT ABOUT JURISDICTION?

Auteurs-es

Mots-clés :

Montreal Convention; Novo CPC; CDC; Jurisdiction; STF judgment

Résumé

This article analyses the possible impacts of the 2017 Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) decision, which put an end to the long-standing dispute regarding the prevalence of the Montreal Convention over the Codigo de Proteçao e Defensa do Consumidor (CDC), on jurisdiction. Indeed, the Montreal Convention contains an article regulating jurisdiction in case of both delays (Article 33(1)) and death or bodily injury (Article 33(2)). This provision is mostly in line with Article 21 of the Novo Código de Processo Civil (CPC). However, in some situations a conflict might occur. The article first analyses the decision and then the conflicts between Article 33 Montreal and Article 21 CPC. It then looks at various interpretations of Article 33 around the world and the concept of forum non conveniens. It concludes that the conflicts might only be present in theory, as some interpretations of Article 33 would be in line with the manner Brazilian courts already decide cases.

Téléchargements

Les données relatives au téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponibles.

Bibliographies de l'auteur-e

Delphine Defossez, Northumbria University, NU, United Kingdom

Lecturer in law, Northumbria University, U.K.;  LL.B. in European Law, Maastricht University, The Netherlands; LL.M. in Comparative European and International Law, European University Institute, Italy; LL.M. in International Commercial and Maritime Law, Swansea University, U.K; Ph.D., Universidade de Brasília, Brazil.

Janny Carrasco , Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas, PUC-MG, Brazil

Postdoctor in Social Justice and Inequality in Latin America from the Universidade de Brasília, UnB. Post-Graduate Professor at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas, PUC-MG. PhD in International Law from the Universidade de Brasília, UnB. Assistant Professor at Marta Abreu Las Villas Universidad. Master in Higher Education from the Universidad Marta Abreu Las Villas, Cuba. Law Degree from Marta Abreu Las Villas Universidad, Cuba.

Références

BRASIL. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil: promulgada em 5 de outubro de 1988. Obra coletiva de autoria da Editora Saraiva com a colaboração de 60 Antonio Luiz de Toledo Pinto, Márcia Cristina Vaz dos Santos Windt e Livia Céspedes. 32. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2003.

BRASIL. Constituição (1988). Emenda constitucional n. 9, de 9 de novembro de 1995. Dá nova redação ao art. 177 da Constituição Federal, alternando e inserindo parágrafos. Lex: coletânea de legislação e jurisprudência: legislação federal e marginália. São Paulo, v. 59, p. 1966, out./dez. 1995.

BRASIL. Codigo de Processo Civil. Lei 13.105 de 16 de março de 2015, Diário Oficial da União.

BRASIL. Decreto No. 5.910, de 27 de Setembro de 2006, Diario Oficial da União.

BRASIL. Lei No. 8.078, de 11 de Setembro de 1990, Diario Oficial da União.

BRASIL. Lei n° 10.406, de 10 de Janeiro de 2002. Codigo Civil. Diario Oficial da União.

BRASIL. Medida Cautelar na Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade ADI n°1.480-DF (1997), 1997.

BRASIL. Medida Cautelar 15.398/RJ, rel. Mina. Nancy Andrighi, j. em 02.04.2009, publicado no DJe em 23.04.2009.

BRASIL. Resp. 1.633.275/SC de 2016.

BRASIL. Acordão, 2017.000098416/SP, jul.14/12/2017.

BRASIL. Rosolem v. Société Air France, S.T.F., Ap. Civ. No. RE 636.331/RJ, Relator: Min. Gilmar Mendes, 25.05.2017.

CANADA. Charbonneau et al v Scoot Pte Ltd 2018 QCCQ 1645.

CASTILLO LARRANAGA, José. Instituciones de derecho procesal civil, 14a. ed., México: Porrúa, 1981.

CMS. Aviation: e-ticketing jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention 1999. 19 June 2018. Disponível em: https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2018/06/aviation-eticketing-jurisdiction-under-the-montreal-convention-1999. Acesso em: 24 Janeiro 2021.

CONVENTION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF CERTAIN RULES RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE BY AIR, opened for signature Oct. 12, 1929, 137 L.N.T.S. 11, 49 Stat. 3000 (entered into force Feb. 13, 1933).

CONVENTION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF CERTAIN RULES RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE BY AIR, opened for signature May 28, 1999, Montreal.

CREMONEZE, Paulo Henrique. Dano Moral: Quantificação da Indenização Segundo a Doutrina do “Punitive Damage,” JUS.COM.BR. Disponível em: https://jus.com.br/artigos/18529/dano-moral-quantificacao-da-indenizacao-segundo-a-doutrina-do-punitive-damage. Acesso em: 24 Janeiro 2021.

DEFOSSEZ, D. I wish my mum was Brazilian: The regulation of passenger liability in the EU and Brazil, Issue in Aviation Law and Policy, vol. 18, 2019.

DEMPSEY, Paul S.; MILDE, Michael. International Air Carrier Liability: The Montreal Convention of 1999, McGill University Centre for Research in Air & Space Law, 2005.

DENIZ, Maria Helena. Curso De Direito Civil Brasileiro - Vol. 1 - 38ª Edição 2021: Volume 1

EU. Case C-213/18, Adriano Guaitoli and others v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2019:927.

EU. Case C-240/14, Eleonore Prüller-Frey v Norbert Brodnig, Axa Versicherung AG, ECLI:EU:C:2015:567.

FRANCE . Cour de Cassation [Cass.] civ., Dec. 7, 2011, Bull. civ. I, No. Q-10-30.919 (Fr.).

FREIDENBERG, Elizabeth Mireya. Federal court dismisses passenger claim based on Article 33 of Montreal Convention. Feb. 2019. Disponível em: https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Aviation/Argentina/Freidenberg-Freidenberg-Lifsic/Federal-Court-dismisses-passenger-claim-based-on-Article-33-of-Montreal-Convention#Decision. Acesso em: 24 Janeiro 2021.

ITALY. Order No 18257/2019.

ITALY. Order No 3561/2020.

LEWIS, Melinda R. The Lawfare of Forum Non Conveniens: Suits by Foreigners in U.S. Courts for Air Accidents Occurring Abroad, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, vol. 78, 320-354, 2013.

MAAG, Gordon E. Forum Non Conveniens in Illinois: a Historical Review, Critical Analysis, And Proposal For Change. S. ILL. U. LJ., vol. 25, 461, 2001.

MACARA, Peter; LIMA, Alexandre. The Brazilian Supreme Court Upholds the Application of the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, Air & Space Law, vol. 43, 505–514, 2018.

MEKONS, Ivars. Liability for international air carriage of passengers in Latvia. December 2019. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0449b4d5-75df-44d8-8542-b98ae66837c5. Acesso em: 24 Janeiro 2021.

MENDELSOHN, Allan I.; LIEUX, Renee. The Warsaw Convention Article 28, the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens, and the Foreign Plaintiff, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, vol 68, 75-113, 2003.

MENDELSOHN, Allan I.; RUIZ, Carols J. The United States vs. France: Article 33 of the Montreal Convention and the Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, vol 77, 468-487, 2012.

PADOVA Roberto; BRICCHI, Gabriele; SECCHIAROLI, Lucia. Italian Supreme Court on Art.33 of Montreal Convention. Jurisdiction Criteria under EC261/2004 and Air Carrier General Terms and Conditions. May 2020. Disponível em: https://www.expertguides.com/articles/italian-supreme-court-on-art-33-of-montreal-convention-jurisdiction-criteria-under-ec2612004-and-air-carrier-general-terms-and-conditions/argmoegf. Acesso em: 24 Janeiro 2021.

PETER PRINCE. Bhopal 20 years on: forum non conveniens and corporate responsibility, Law and Bills Digest Section, 8 February 2005.

REBELLO PINHO, Rodrigo César. Ministério Público do Estado de São Paulo, O Transporte Aéreo e o Código de Defesa do Consumidor. 12 June 2006. Disponível em: http://feeds.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/dinheiro/fi1207200605.htm. Acesso em: 24 Janeiro 2021.

SILVA, Jose Alberto. Declaratoria de forum non conveniens a Estados Unidos eligiendo como forno más conveniente el foro mexicano. Jornadas ASADIP 2014. Porto Alegre. Edit Grafica RJR65 and ss.

THOMPSON THORNTON, J. United States: Forum Non Conveniens In The Age Of The Montreal Convention, September 2016). Disponível em: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/aviation/529618/forum-non-conveniens-in-the-age-of-the-montreal-convention. Acesso em: 24 Janeiro 2021.

USA. Baah v. Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited, 2007 WL424993 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

USA. Da Rocha v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 451 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2006).

USA: In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La. on July 9, 1982, 821 F.2d 1147, 1161 (5th Cir. 1987).

USA. In re Air Crash Over The Mid-Atlantic on june 1, 2009, 34 Avi. 15,546 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

USA. In re: Air Crash at San Francisco, California, on July 6, 2013, 2017 WL 3484643 (August 14, 2017).

USA. King v. Cessna Aircraft, Co., 562 F.3d 1374 (11th Cir. 2009).

USA. Klos v. Polskie Linie Lotnicze, 133 F.3d 164, 167-8 (2d Cir. 1997).

USA. Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2001).

USA. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 244 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2001).

USA. Nolan v. Boeing Co., 919 F.2d 1058, 1068-69 (5th Cir. 1990).

USA. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Lopez, 490 U.S. 1032 (1989).

USA. Pierre-Louis v. Newvac Corp., 584 E3d 1052 (11th Cir. 2009).

USA. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno 454 U.S. 235 (1981).

USA. Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S, 631 F.3d 1321 (2011)

Revista Direito.UnB |Janeiro – Abril, 2021, V. 05, N.1

Téléchargements

Publié-e

2021-04-30

Comment citer

DEFOSSEZ, Delphine; CARRASCO , Janny. THE 2017 STF DECISION; WHAT ABOUT JURISDICTION?. Direito.UnB - Revue de Droit de l’Université de Brasília, [S. l.], v. 5, n. 1, p. 43–64, 2021. Disponível em: https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/revistadedireitounb/article/view/34685. Acesso em: 21 nov. 2024.

Articles similaires

1 2 3 4 > >> 

Vous pouvez également Lancer une recherche avancée d’articles similaires à cet article.