Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) on air carrier liability in case of accidents
Date: 1995-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, application of EU law, carrier, indemnification, transport accident, traveller

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  20.12.1995 
COM(95)  724 final 

95/0359 (SYN) 

Proposal  for a 
COUNCIL  REGULATION (EC) 
on air carrier  liability  in case of accidents 

(presented  by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

A.  BACKGROUND 

1.  Air  carrier  liability  in  case  of  accidents  in  international  carriage  by  air  is  basically 
governed  by  the  1929  Warsaw  Convention  (WC)  for  the  Unification  of  Certain  Rules 
relating  to  International  Carriage  by  Air  -  to  which  all  Member  States  but  not  the 
Community  are Contracting Parties - and a number of other instruments which,  together 
with  the  Convention,  is  generally  referred  to  as the  Warsaw  System(1)  (WS).  The  WC 
was  established  by  the  worldwide  air  transport  Community  in  order  to  provide  a 
worldwide  system  of  standards  and  rules  for  the  carriage  of  passengers  by  air  and  in 
particular  common  rules in  respect  of  liability  for  passengers  and  cargo in  the  event  of 
an  accident,  loss  of  baggage  and  delay  for  international  air transport  while  at  the  same 
time  limiting  costs  for  air  carriers.  It  included,  inter  alia,  the very  basic  provision  that 
the  airline  is  presumed  to  be  liable  (Article  17)  but  that  liability  is  generally  limited 
(Article  22) to  about  US  $10  000  as  a  maximum.  Nevertheless,  the  passenger  and  the 
carrier  may,  by  special  contract,  agree  to  a  higher  limit  of  liability  (Article  22§l).The 
carrier has the right to defend  itself against any claims under the Convention  if it proves 
it  took  all  necessary  measures  to  avoid  the  damage,  in  which  case  it  will  not  be  held 
liable (Article 20§1). Moreover,  the carrier is permitted to reduce its liability  if it proves 
the  contributory  negligence  of  the  injured  person  (Article  21).  Finally,  Article  25 
prohibits  the carrier  from  availing itself  of  any  clauses limiting  or  excluding  liability  if 
it  or its  agents  are  guilty  of  wilful  misconduct. 

2.  The  WS  has  won  broad  acceptance  in  so  far  as  it  represents  a  workable  attempt  to 
eliminate,  or  at least  reduce,  problems  of  conflict  of  law  and jurisdictions  by  means  of 
a uniform  international  law.  However,  it is now generally  agreed that the WS no longer 
realizes  its  economic  objectives.  In  short,  the  limits  of  liability  established  by  the  WS 
are  too low  by  today's  monetary  standards  and  for  today's  aviation  market. 

3.  Attempts have been made within the Warsaw framework  over the years to increase these 
limits. But  such attempts have not met with any  success due to lack of sufficient  number 
of  ratifications  for  such  modifications  to  the  Convention.The  Warsaw  system  indeed 
suffers  from  a lack of an automatic adaptation  mechanism,  which would take account of 
the  impact  of  inflation  and  the  development  of  real  income. 

(i) 

In  addition  to  the  initial  Warsaw  Convention  (WC)  the  other  instruments  include 
The  Hague Protocol (1955), the 1961 Guadalajara Convention. Other instruments, related 
to the  System  but  not yet  in force,  owing to  an insufficient  number  of countries  having 
ratified these instruments, are:  the  1971 Guatemala City Protocol  and the four  Protocols 
signed at Montreal  in  1975.The  1966 Montreal  Inter-carrier Agreement (MIA) must also 
be  mentioned  in  that  it  is  a  "voluntary"  agreement  between  airlines  to  include  certain 
conditions  in  their  contract  of  carriage. 

4.  The  only  possibility  currently  available  to  a  victim  or  next-of-kin  for  recovering 
compensation  beyond  the Warsaw  limits  is  to prove the  wilful  misconduct  of the  air 
carrier.  This obligation to prove wilful  misconduct in order to break the current limits 
leads to lengthy and costly litigation for both passenger and carrier and it is the carrier 
who generally will have to bear the costs of this complex system. This is detrimental to 
the interests of air transport policy  in general. 

5.  Attempts have also been  made outside the Warsaw  framework  to update the limits.In 
1966 the WC was supplemented by a "voluntary" inter-carrier agreement imposed on all 
carriers  flying  to,  from  or with  an  agreed  stop in  the US.  This  agreement,  called  the 
Montreal agreement, raised the applicable limit for passengers in case of death or injury 
to US $ 75 000. It also introduced another important element; carriers waived their  right 
of  defence  under  Article  20§1  of  the  WC,  bringing,  therefore,  strict  liability.  By 
20 November  1992,  Japanese  airlines  agreed,  by  special  contract  incorporated  in 
conditions of  carriage  and tariffs,  that  they  would  waive  all  restrictions  of liability  in 
international  transport  and  would  do  so  under  strict  liability  for  claims  up  to 
SDR  100 000 (approximately  ECU  119 600). The UK, by  adopting  the Licensing of 
Air Carriers Regulation  1992 SI 1992/2992, required that a carrier with a valid operating 
licence granted by the UK Civil Aviation Authority must make an SDR 100 000  special 
contract with passengers carried for  remuneration  or hire. It  is worthwhile noting that 
Italy, by adopting Law 274 of 7 July 1988, compelled all airlines serving a point in Italy 
to adopt a special  contract  for  SDR  100 000. In recent years most European  countries 
have introduced domestically  and, for their own national  carriers also internationally, a 
higher passenger limit than that prescribed by the Hague Protocol (see Annex I). 

B.  COMMUNITY ACTION 

6.  The third  aviation  package has created  an internal  aviation  market where the rules  for 
the  operation  of  air  services,  whether  domestic  of  international,  have  been  largely 
harmonized. Rules on the nature and limitation of liability for damages of an air carrier 
in the event of death or injury  of air passengers form  an essential element of the terms 
and  conditions  of  carriage  in  an  air transport  contract  between  carrier  and  passenger. 
Article  7 of  Council  Régulation  (EC) No  2407/92  introduced  with  the  third  package 
requires  air carriers to be insured  to cover liability  in  case of  accidents. However,  the 
Regulation  does  not  provide  the  detailed  rules  as  to  compliance  with  this  provision. 
Given,  as  stated  above, that  Member  states have variously  taken  steps to increase the 
Warsaw limit and even in some cases to modify  the nature of liability leading therefore, 
to  different  terms  and  conditions  of  carriage  and  given  also  that  differences  subsist 
between the liability rules for domestic and international transport, it is obvious that the 
situation risks fragmenting  the internal  aviation market so far  achieved. 

7. 

In  addition,  one  of  the  most  important  factors  in  all  modes  of  transport  and  thus in 
aviation  is  the  question  of  safety  and  quality  of  service.  The  inevitable  link  between 
safety  and  the  issue  of  liability  cannot  be  denied.  The  original  low  limit  set  by  the 
Warsaw Convention  was in  part a protection  for  an infant  industry  whose risk  factors 
were largely unknown and therefore considered to be high. In such a climate the interest 
was to reduce as far as possible the financial  liability of the carrier even to the detriment 
of  the  passenger.  Today,  the  situation  of  the  aviation  sector  is  totally  different;  it  is 
perceived  to  be  one  of  the  safest  modes  of  transport.  This  image  of  a  safe  and 

high-quality  service  is  at  odds  with  a  system  whereby  the  passenger  is  still  treated  as 
taking a risk, which justifies  a low level of compensation  in  the event of death or  injury. 
In  addition,  the  fact  that  in  order  to  achieve  an  acceptable  level  of  compensation  the 
wilful  misconduct  of the  carrier  has to be  proved  leads very  often  to  serious  damage to 
the  image  of  aviation  as the  safest  mode  of  transport.  The  aim  of  the  EC  air  transport 
policy  is to ensure that  not only will  air transport  continue to be the safest  way to travel 
but  also  that  it  will  be  perceived  as  such.  Therefore  the  issues  of  liability  and 
compensation  should  now  be  legislated  for  in  terms  which  are  consistent  with  today's 
aviation  industry. 

8.  The objective  of the internal  aviation  market  is also to take account  of the needs of the 
air  transport  user.  The  low  limits  currently  in  place  are,  as  stated  above,  largely 
inadequate  and  unsatisfactory  for  the  passenger  victim  of  an  air  accident  or  for  his 
survivors.  Moreover,  the  fact  that the  passenger  has to  prove  wilful  misconduct  on  the 
part  of the carrier  in  order to recover  compensation  above the limits  of the WC,  makes 
settlements  less predictable,  more  expensive  and  time-consuming.  Furthermore,  due  to 
the  complexity  of  the  system  -  i.e.  different  limits  in  force  and  carriers'  differing 
obligations under national  law - the passengers is misinformed  or not informed  at all  as 
to the applicable  scheme. It is worth noting that the  "Notice" formats  of  standard tickets 
make no attempt to inform  the passenger of the precise limit that applies to his particular 
journey.  Although  the  possibility  always  exists,  of  course,  for  passengers  to  ensure 
themselves on  an individual  basis, given  the confusing  situation,  it is impossible for  the 
passenger  to make  an informed  decision  as to which  personal  insurance  he  should take. 
In  a  nutshell,  not  only  are  the  passengers  or  next-of-kin  insufficiently  covered  by  the 
current  low  limits,  but  they  have  also  to  face  the  uncertainty  and  lack  of  transparency 
of  remedies  when  having  to  seek  higher  damages  than  the  mandatory  limit.  Generally 
speaking  it  has  been  recognized  as  witnessed  by  Article  129a  of  the  Treaty  that  the 
Community  should  contribute to a higher level  of consumer protection. This proposal  is 
very  much  in  line with  that  commitment. 

9. 

In  conclusion,  it  can  be  seen  that the  role  of  liability  in  the  aviation  sector  is  far  from 
negligible. 

10.  It  is  against  this  background  of  low  limits  and  a  risk  not  only  to  the  unity  of  the 
internal  aviation  market,  but  also  to  the  protection  of  air  transport  users  that  the 
Commission  felt  that  a  basic  reappraisal  of  the  present  situation  was  required.  To  this 
end  it  commissioned  in  1989  a  study(2)  in  order  to  have  a  full  account  of  the  state  of 
ratification,  legislation  and  practices  in  the  field  of  air  carriers'  liability  in  the 
Member  States  as  well  as  in  other  countries.  The  results  of  that  analysis  lead  in 
March  1991 to a study  on the  "Possibilities of Community  action to harmonize limits of 
passenger  liability  and increase the amounts of compensation  for  international  accidents 
victims in air transport"(3).  On the basis of the conclusions of the report, the Commission 
issued  a  Consultation  Paper  entitled  "Passenger  liability  in  aircraft  accidents  -
Warsaw  Convention  and Internal Market requirements''^. The Consultation Paper, while 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

"La  responsabilité  du  transporteur  aérien  à  l'égard  des  passagers  et  des  expéditeurs  de 
marchandises".  J.  Naveau,  June  1989, updated  in  September  1989. 
Study  delivered  on  15  September  1991  by  Sven  Brise,  Consultant. 
Ref:  VII.C.l  -  174/92-8. 

acknowledging  the need to increase  and harmonize the limit of air carrier liability  for 
passenger injury  and death in Member States, was intended to promote a discussion on 
how  this  might  best  be  done  within  the  European  Community  framework.  Several 
organizations and interested parties communicated their views to the Commission.  They 
expressed the opinion that an increase of the limits up to amounts between 300 000 and 
500 000 SDR (ECU 358 800 - 598 000) was urgently required and that any limits should 
be  subject  to  regular  updating  in  line with  inflation  rates.  However,  increased  limits 
should apply to all air transport within, to, and from the Community, irrespective of the 
nationality of the airline concerned.  As far as the procedures were concerned, opinions 
were  divided  between  adopting  a  regulatory  approach  -  for  example  by  means  of  a 
modified licensing requirement for insurance - and a voluntary inter-carrier agreement^. 

11.  A  "Round  Table"  with  Member  States  and  interested  parties  took  place  on 
23 March  1993. It confirmed  these elements and recommended that a study on the cost 
implications of different  limits and the impact of increased limits on litigation  costs be 
commissioned.  The  Commission  launched  such  a  study(6),  the  results  of  which  were 
available by February  1994. Its main conclusions were that the way the insurance market 
will respond to an increase in mandatory liability limits would depend on the state of the 
market  at  the  time  of  introduction.  Increases  in  premiums  would  be  based  on  the 
perceived exposure of both the individual  carrier and the whole market.  On the whole, 
however, it was perceived that the market would react in a moderate way. If the limits 
are  sufficient  to  accommodate  claims  or  if  there  are  no  limits,  some  reduction  in 
plaintiffs'  costs would be likely to result, since a number of plaintiffs  would not need to 
go to litigation. Insurers and other interested parties seem, in general, to be confident that 
financial  capacity would be available irrespective of the level  of the limit chosen. 

12.  Parallel to the Commission's efforts,  there have been efforts  in other fora to arrive at a 
solution.Thus  EC AC  in  its  Triennial  Meeting  (22-24  June  1994)  adopted  a 
Recommendation  aiming to increase limits and to ensure the payment  of  a lump sum. 
This Recommendation  also urged carriers to conclude an inter-carrier agreement in this 
respect.  In  response to  this the  AEA set up  a task  force  to  consider  such  a voluntary 
agreement  between  air  carriers.  In  order  to  discuss  such  a  system,  the  air  carriers 
obtained US anti-trust immunity, and a comfort letter from the Commission services. An 
inter-carrier  agreement  was  agreed  in  Kuala  Lumpur  at  the  IATA  Annual  General 
Meeting  (30 October  1995)  and  signed  by  twelve  major  world  carriers,  including  the 
following  European  carriers: Austrian Airlines, KLM, SAS and  Swissair. 

13.  The  solution  agreed  by  IATA  waives the  limitation  of  liability  in  Article  22  of the 
Warsaw  Convention  with  respect  to  the  liability  of  the  participating  air  carriers 
(see Annex II). Recoverable compensatory  damages might be determined  and awarded 
by reference  to the law of the domicile of the passenger.The inter-carrier agreement is 
a minimum common denominator. If carriers acting on a voluntary basis, or obliged by 
their  governments,  would  like  to  offer  more,  they  would  be  able  to  do  so  The 
signing carriers  will  have to  implement  the  provisions  of the  agreement  no later than 
1 November  1996. 

(5) 

(6) 

Article  22(1)  of  the  WC  allows,  by  special  contract,  the  carrier  and  the  passenger  to 
agree to a higher limit of liability. 
"The cost implications of higher mandatory compensation limits for passengers involved 
in air accidents". Frère Cholmeley Bischoff,  delivered  on February  1994. 

14.  The  draft  inter-carrier  agreement  was  discussed  with  interested  parties(7)  at  a  meeting 
held  on 23 October  1995. All  participants  agreed that  the agreement  would  constitute a 
significant  improvement  of the situation. However,  such an agreement does not solve all 
issues as to liability.  In particular, the effectiveness  of the agreement will  depend  on the 
degree  of  participation  by  airlines.  At  the  moment,  as  indicated  earlier,  only  certain 
Community  carriers have signed  . Without the agreement of all Community  air carriers, 
the  risks  of  differing  standards  and  thus  fragmentation  of  the  internal  aviation  market 
will not only  subsist, but may increase. Thus the situation for the air user would  become 
more  confusing. 

15.  Against  this  background,  and  considering  the  conclusions  of  both  studies  mentioned 
above,  the  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  Community  action  should  be  undertaken 
in  order  to  establish  an  acceptable  situation  for  the  air  transport  sector  by  ensuring 
common  rules  for  liability  in  the  terms  and  conditions  of  carriage  irrespective  of  the 
nature  of  the  operation  and  by  guaranteeing  a  fair  situation  for  air  transport  users.  In 
doing  so the  Commission  has taken  into  account  the  following  elements: 

The  fact  that  there  is  a universal  acceptance  that  the  current  mandatory  limits  are 
too low,  coupled with  a recognition  that the WS, despite its economic  deficiencies, 
provides  a  uniform  legal  foundation  enjoying  worldwide  recognition  for  the 
settlement  of claims to passengers in aviation  accidents.  Therefore,  any  attempts to 
improve  the  current  situation  should  maintain  the  basic  elements  of  the  liability 
system  in  force. 

The fact  that Member  States have taken various  steps to increase the Warsaw  limit 
and  even  in  some  cases  have  modified  the  nature  of  the  liability  and  also  that 
differences  subsist  between  the  liability  rules  for  domestic  and  international 
transport  risk,  fragmenting 
internal  aviation  market  so  far  achieved. 
Consequently,  any  change  should  guarantee  the  equal  treatment  of  the  carriers, 
irrespective  of  departure  point,  type  of  service  (domestic  or  international)  etc. 

the 

A  priori,  compensation  amounts  should  probably  be  in  line  with  the  levels  of 
compensation  actually  paid  to  victims  in  non-aviation  accidents  in  industrialized 
countries(8). 

(?) 

(8) 

Association  of  European  Airlines,  European  Regional  Airlines,  International  Chamber 
of Commerce, International  Union of Aviation  Insurers. The Federation of Air Transport 
User  Representatives  of  Europe,  the  European  Association  of  Charter  Airlines  and  the 
Comité Européen  des  Assurances  provided  written  statements. 
For  instance,  a 40-year  old  executive  earning[  ECU  97  082] a year,  survived  by  a  wife 
and two young children, could anticipate compensation of about [ECU 647  218]. If killed 
in  a road  traffic  accident,  this would  be fully  recoverable.  If killed on  board  an  aircraft 
operated  by  a carrier  which  has  contracted  for  limits  within  the WS  (US$  20  000), the 
recovery  could  be  as  embarrassingly  low  as  [ECU  17 647],  less 
than  3%  of  the 
full  value  of  the  claim!  (The  Journal  of  Personal  Injury  Litigation.  2nd  issue, 
Nigel  P.  Taylor)  (see  Annex  III). 

Simple  and  speedy  procedures  for  both  the  air  users  and  the  carriers  should  be 
guaranteed.  It is intolerable that victims or their relatives  should have to wait  for 
the results of lengthy litigation. Air accidents normally are of a serious nature with 
dramatic  consequences  and  involve  in  most  instances  a  significant  number  of 
passengers  far  away  from  home.  Therefore,  it is reasonable  to follow  the ECAC 
Recommendation and ensure the payment of a lump sum to take care of immediate 
financial  implications. 

The proposal  of the Commission has therefore  the following  main elements: 

a waiving of all limits; 

the introduction of strict liability up to ECU 100 000 This will protect air users 
even in the case of a terrorist  attack that would  otherwise leave the innocent 
passenger uncovered.  Moreover,  by  doing so the  Community  would  legalize 
a practice which has been accepted by  airlines for  many years and  officially 
formalized  in some cases(9). 

It would be preferable that all carriers serving a point in the Community adopt the 
same  system.  Third-country  carriers  not  subject  to  Community  rules  should  be 
requested to inform  passengers accordingly, properly  and clearly. 

Passengers  should  have  the  choice  of  the jurisdiction  before  which  to  bring  an 
action.  It  should  include  the  option  to  bring  an  action  before  the  court  of  the 
Member  State  where  the  passenger  has  his  domicile.This  might  circumvent  the 
possibilities of confusion that might arise when referring to the law of the domicile. 

Priority  should  later  be  given  to  improve  the  situation  in  respect  of  passengers' 
luggage and cargo, if efforts  at international  level by carriers and/or governments 
would fail  to provide a satisfactory  solution. 

implications,  because  current 

Such  a Community  action,  according to the studies referred  to above, would have 
minimal  cost 
insurance  costs  for 
European  airlines generally account for about 0.1% to 0.2% of total operating costs. 
An  increase  or  a  removal  of  the  limit  will,  therefore,  only  represent  a  minimal 
increase in costs(10) of insurance premium - it would comprise about 0.1% to 0.35% 
of total  operating costs. 

liability 

(9)  The MIA introduced in  1966 increased limits to, from  or with an agreed stop in the US 
to US $75 000 on a strict liability basis. Japanese airlines have, since November 1992, 
waived liability limits on their flights with a level of strict liability up to SDR 100 000. 
(10)  It is worthwhile noting that great advances in aviation  safety  since  1929 allow aviation 
to  qualify  as the  safest  way  to  travel;  the  average  number  of  passengers  fatalities  in 
recent years has been less than 700 per annum.  This situation  contributes  all the more 
to the current low premium levels. 

The  Community  action  must  be  seen  as  a  measure  which  will  help  to  trigger 
existing  international  Conventions  (WS).  By  adopting  the  Regulation, 
the 
Community  will  act  as  a  catalyst  together  with  similar  moves  in  Japan  and  the 
in 
USA.  In  any  event, 
cooperation  with  ECAC  use  all  its  efforts  in  order  to  urge  the  appropriate 
international  forum  -  ICAO  -  to  update  the  current  international  instruments  into 
force. 

the  Member  States  should 

the  Community  and 

16.  These  elements  and  concerns  have led the Commission  to propose  a Regulation  which, 
by  establishing  certain  common  rules  for  liability  irrespective  of  the  nature  of  the  air 
services, will  contribute to the internal  aviation  already  established by the third  aviation 
package and will  in  addition  ensure a high level  of  protection  for  the air transport  user. 

C. 

JUSTIFICATION  OF  THE  ACTION 

17.  The Community  action envisaged  can be analysed in terms of subsidiarity  principles by 

answering  the  following  questions: 

(a)  What  are  the  objectives  of  the  proposal  in  relation  to  the  obligations  of  the 
Community  and  what  is  the  Community  dimension  of  the  problem  (for  instance 
how  many  Member  States  are involved  and  what  has been  the  solution  so  far)? 

The third  aviation  package  has created  an internal  aviation  market where the rules 
for  the  operation  of  air  services,  whether  domestic  or  international,  have  been 
largely  harmonized.  Rules  on the nature  and  limitation  of  liability  for  damages  of 
an  air  carrier  in  the  event  of  death  or  injury  of  air  passengers  form  an  essential 
element of the terms and conditions of carriage in an air transport contract between 
carrier  and  passenger.  Given  that  Member  States  have  variously  taken  steps  to 
increase  the  Warsaw  limit  and  even  in  some  cases  to  modify  the  nature  of  the 
liability,  and  given  also  that  differences  subsist  between  the  liability  rules  for 
domestic  and  international  transport,  it  is  obvious  that  the  situation  threatens  to 
fragment  the  internal  aviation  market  so  far  achieved.  Moreover,  in  the  event  of 
death or injury,  air transport users  or next-of-kin  are not only insufficiently  covered 
in respect  of  the WC  limits, but they  have  also to face  the uncertainty  and lack  of 
transparency  of remedies when  having to  seek higher damages than the  mandatory 
limit. 

(b)  Does the  envisaged  action  relate to an  exclusive  competence  of the Community  or 

a  competence  shared  with  the Member  States? 

The envisaged action does not relate to an exclusive competence of the Community. 

(c)  Which  solution  is most efficient  in comparison  between  Community  measures  and 

measures  of  the  Member  States? 

Since  with  the  creation  of  the  single  aviation  market  the  distinction  between 
domestic  and  international  carriage  for  the  operation  of  air  services  is  no  longer 
valid,  such  a  solution  can  best be  addressed  at the  Community  level. 

(d)  What added value does the proposed Community  action provide and what are the 

costs of no action? 

The value of the Community  action lies in the improvement  of the position of air 
carriers and protection  of the air users when the current liability limits have been 
removed, by ensuring fair compensation and legal certainty.  It will also provide the 
passengers with speedy  procedures. It should be emphasized that the current system 
is extremely complex, the rights of the passengers and the obligations of air carriers 
currently  vary  as  a  function  of  departure  point,  type  of  service  (domestic  or 
international), etc. and the average passenger is most of the time misinformed or not 
informed  at  all  of  the  precise  limit  that  applies  to  her/his journey.  Passengers 
involved in accidents abroad have to face different  legal situations from  what they 
are used in their home country. The inter-carrier agreement adopted by IATA will 
not eliminate all difficulties.  Moreover, the risk exists that some European carriers 
will not adhere to this voluntary agreement, thereby adding to the current confusion. 
The costs of no action would be insufficient  protection of air passengers in case of 
air  accidents  and  persistence  of  an  overly  complex  system  for  Community  air 
carriers within the Community. 

(e)  What kind of action is at the disposal of the Community (recommendation,  financial 

assistance, regulation,  mutual  recognition, etc.)? 

In order to provide for homogenous and effective  protection of the air users in this 
area, it is necessary  to introduce legal measures, either in the form  of a Directive 
or  a  Regulation.  By  embodying  a  broad  Community  system  in  a  legislative 
framework  divergent national measures will be avoided. 

(f) 

Is uniform  regulation necessary or is it sufficient  to draft  a directive which outlines 
the general  objectives while leaving execution to the Member States? 

Because  of  the  international  mode  of  operation  a uniform  action  is  desirable  in 
order to provide a system that will guarantee equal protection for all air passengers 
within  the  Community,  avoiding  on  the  one  hand,  discriminatory  treatment  and 
uncertain situations and on the other hand, guaranteeing a proper level of protection. 
Since the results desired by the action would need to apply to air carriers operating 
transborder  traffic  to  a very  large  extent  and  with  passengers  of  many  different 
nationalities, a Regulation  would represent the best legal  instrument. 

Proposal  for  a 
COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EC) 
on  air  carrier  liability  in  case  of  accidents 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community,  and  in  particular 
Article  84(2) thereof, 

Having  regard  to the  proposal  from  the Commission(1), 

Acting  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  set  out  in  Article  189c,  in  cooperation  with  the 
European  Parliament^, 

Having  regard  to the  opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee(3), 

Whereas  the  rules  on  liability  in  case  of  accidents  are  governed  by  the  Convention  for  the 
Unification  of  Certain  Rules Relating to International  Carriage by  Air,  signed  at Warsaw on 
12  October  1929,  or  that  Convention  as  amended  at  The  Hague  on  28  September  1955, 
whichever  may be  applicable; whereas the Warsaw  Convention  is applied worldwide  for  the 
benefit  of both  passengers  and  air  carriers,  and  must  be  preserved; 

in 

the  air 

Whereas the rules on the nature and limitation  of liability  in the event  of death,  wounding or 
any  other  bodily  injury  suffered  by  a  passenger  form  part  of  the  terms  and  conditions  of 
transport  contract  between  carrier  and  passenger;  whereas 
carriage 
Council  Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92(4), Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92(5), as amended by the 
Act of Accession  of Austria,  Finland  and  Sweden,  and Regulation  (EEC) No 2409/92(6) have 
created  an  internal  aviation  market  wherein  it is appropriate  that the  rules  on  the  nature  and 
limitation  of  liability  should  be  harmonized; 

Whereas the limit  set  on liability  by the Warsaw Convention  is too low by today's  economic 
and  social  standards;  whereas  in  consequence  Member  States  have  variously  increased  the 
liability limit, thereby leading to different  terms and conditions of carriage in the Community; 

Whereas in addition  the Warsaw  Convention  only  applies to international  transport;  whereas 
in the internal aviation market the distinction between national  and international transport has 
been  eliminated;  whereas  it  is  therefore  appropriate  to  have  the  same  level  and  nature  of 
liability  in both  national  and  international  transport; 

(i) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

O J N oL  240,  24.8.1992,  p.l. 
O J N o L 2 4 0,  24.8.1992,  p. 8 
OJ No L  240,  24.8.1992,  p. 25. 

10 

Whereas the present low limit of liability often leads  to lengthy legal actions which  damage 
the image of air transport; 

Whereas Community  action  in the field of  air transport  should  also aim  at a high level of 
protection for the interests of users; 

Whereas in order to provide harmonized  conditions of carriage in respect  of liability  of air 
carrier and, further,  in order to ensure a high level of effective protection of air users, action, 
regard being had to the principle of subsidiarity, can best be addressed at Community level; 

Whereas it is appropriate to remove all limits of liability in the event of death, wounding or 
any other bodily injury  suffered  by a passenger; 

Whereas,  in  order  to  avoid  situations  where  victims  of  unpreventable  accidents  remain 
uncovered,  carriers should not, with respect to any claim arising out of the death, wounding 
or  other  bodily  injury  of  a  passenger  under  Article  17 of  the  Warsaw  Convention,  avail 
themselves of any defence under Article (20)§1 thereof up to the sum of ECU  100 000; 

Whereas passengers or next-of-kin  should receive a lump  sum as soon as possible in order 
to face immediate needs; 

Whereas persons entitled to compensation should have the benefit of legal clarity in the event 
of  an  accident;  whereas they  should  be fully  informed  beforehand  of the  applicable rules; 
whereas  it  is  necessary  to  avoid  lengthy  litigation  or  claims  processes;  whereas  it  is 
appropriate in addition to give the person entitled to compensation the option of taking action 
in  the  courts  of  the  Member  State  in  which  the passenger  has  his  domicile  or  permanent 
residence; 

Whereas it is desirable in order to avoid distortion of competition that third-country  carriers 
adequately inform  passengers of their conditions of carriage; 

WThereas the improvement of the situation for luggage and cargo is currently taken care of at 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) level and does not require the same urgent 
treatment as the passengers' situation; 

Whereas  it  is  appropriate  and  necessary  that  the  values  expressed  in  this  Regulation  be 
increased in accordance with economic developments; whereas it is appropriate to empower 
the Commission, after consultation of an advisory committee, to decide upon such increases, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION. 

Article 1 

This Regulation  defines  the obligations  of  Community  air  carriers to  cover  liability  in the 
event of accidents to passengers. 

11 

1.  For  the  purpose  of this  Regulation: 

Article  2 

(a)  "air  carrier"  means  an  air transport  undertaking  with  a valid  operating  licence; 

(b)  "Community  air carrier" means  an air transport undertaking within the meaning of 

Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2407/92; 

(c)  "persons  entitled  to  compensation"  means  the  victims  and/or  persons  who,  in  the 
light of the applicable  law,  are entitled to represent the victims in accordance with 
a  legal  provision,  a  court  decision  or  in  accordance  with  a  special  contract; 

(d)  "lump  sum"  means  an  advance  payment  to the  person  entitled  to  compensation  to 
enable  him  to  meet  his  most  urgent  needs,  without  prejudice  to  the  speediest 
settlement  of  full  compensation; 

(e)  "ECU" means the unit  of  account  adopted  in drawing up the general  budget  of the 
European  Communities  in  accordance  with  Articles  207  and  209  of the  Treaty. 

(f) 

"Warsaw  Convention"  means  the  Convention  for  the  Unification  of  certain  Rules 
relating  to  International  Carriage  by  Air,  signed  in  Warsaw  on  12  October  1929, 
together with all international instruments which build on and are associated with  it; 

2.  Concepts  contained  in  this  Regulation  which  are  not  defined  in  paragraph  1 shall  be 

equivalent  to those used  in  the  Warsaw  Convention. 

Article  3 

1.  The liability  of a Community  air carrier for  damages  sustained  in the event of the death, 
wounding  or any  other bodily  injury  suffered  by  a passenger  shall  not be  subject  to any 
statutory  or  contractual  limits. 

2.  For  any  damages  up  to  the  sum  of  ECU  100 000  the  Community  air  carrier  shall  not 
exclude  or  limit  his liability  by  proving that  he  and  his  agents  have taken  all  necessary 
measures  to  avoid  the  damage  or  that  it  was  impossible  for  him  or  them  to  take  such 
measures. 

Article  4 

1.  The carrier  shall  without  delay,  and in  any  event  not later than  ten  days  after  the  event 
during  which  the  damage  occurred,  pay  to  or  make  available  to  the  person  entitled  to 
compensation  a lump sum of up to ECU  50 000 in proportion to the injury  sustained and 
in  any  event  a  sum  of  ECU  50 000  in  case  of  death. 

2.  The  lump  sum  may  be  offset  against  any  subsequent  sum  to  be  paid  in  respect  of  the 

liability  of  the  Community  air  carrier,  but  is not  returnable  under  any  circumstances. 

12 

Article 5 

1.  The  provisions  contained  in  Articles  3  and  4  shall  be  included  in  the  Community 

air carrier's conditions of carriage 

2.  Adequate information  on the provisions contained  in Articles 3 and 4 shall  on request 
be given to passengers at the Community carrier's agencies, travel agencies and check-in 
counters, and a summary  of the requirements shall be made on the ticket document. 

3.  Air carriers established outside the Community and not subject to the obligations referred 
to in Articles 3 and 4 shall expressly  and clearly  inform  the passengers thereof,  at the 
time  of  purchase  of  the  ticket  at  the  carrier's  agencies,  travel  agencies,  or  check-in 
counters located in the territory of a Member State. Air carriers shall on request provide 
the  passengers  with  a  form  setting  out  their  conditions.  The  fact  that  the  limit  is 
indicated  on the ticket document  shall not constitute sufficient  information. 

Article 6 

Once a year Member  States' authorities  shall  notify  the list of third  country  air carriers not 
subject to the rules of this Regulation to the Air Transport User Organizations concerned and 
to the Commission, which  shall make that list available to the other Member States. 

Article 7 

A person entitled to compensation in the case of accidents involving Community  air carriers 
may, in addition  to the rights conferred  by Article 28 of the Warsaw  Convention, bring an 
action  for  liability  before  the  courts  of  the  Member  State  where  the  passenger  has  his 
domicile or permanent residence. 

Article 8 

The Commission may, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 9(1), decide by 
regulation  to  increase  as  appropriate  the  values  set  out  in  Articles  3  and  4  if  economic 
developments indicate the necessity  of such measures. 

Article 9 

1.  The Commission shall be assisted by a committee of an advisory nature composed of the 
representatives  of  the  Member  States  and  chaired  by  the  representative  of  the 
Commission. 

The  representative  of  the  Commission  shall  submit  to  the  committee  a  draft  of  the 
measures to be taken.  The committee  shall  deliver  its  opinion  on the  draft,  within  a 
time-limit which the chairman may lay down according to the urgency of the matter, if 
necessary  by taking a vote. 

The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; in addition, each Member State shall have 
the right to ask to have its position recorded in the minutes. 

The  Commission  shall  take  the  utmost  account  of  the  opinion  delivered  by  the 
committee.  It shall  inform  the committee  of the manner in which its opinion  has been 
taken into account. 

2.  Furthermore, the Committee may be consulted by the Commission on any other question 

concerning the application  of the Regulation. 

Article  10 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  six  months  after  the  date  of  its  publication  in  the 
Official  Journal  of the European Communities. 

This Regulation  shall be binding in its entirety  and directly  applicable in all Member States. 

Done  at Brussels, 

For the Council 
The President 

14 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESSES 
with special  reference to small and medium-sized  enterprises 

Title of the proposal: 

Council Regulation on air carrier liability in case of accidents 

Document reference number: 

The proposal: 

The impact on business 

1.  Who will be affected  by the proposal? 

Which sectors of business? 
Air carriers. 

Wrhich  sizes  of  business  (what  is  the  concentration  of  small  and  medium-sized 
firms)? 
The  European  market  structure  is  essentially  centred  on  large  companies  which 
represent  65.4%  of  the  market.  Charter  companies  represent  26.7%  of  the 
European aviation market.  Small and medium-sized enterprises represent only 0.5% 
of  the market,  with  regional  air carriers  sharing  0.4%  of  the  overall  market and 
general  aviation  carriers  -  namely  taxi  operators  and  corporate  operators  -' 
representing 0.1% on the whole(1). 

Are these companies located in specific  geographical  areas of the Community? 
No 

2.  What will business have to do to comply with the proposal? 

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 already requires all holders of operating licences 
to have liability insurance, the amount of cover has been left  so far  to the discretion of 
Member States. To comply with this Regulation, air carriers will have to renegotiate their 
liability  insurance to allow passenger liability  limit to be waived. 

( i) 

"The  competitiveness  of the European Community's air transport  industry  " Study by 
AVMARK Inc., prepared for the Commission, 28 February  1992. 

15 

3.  What  economic  effects  is the proposal  likely  to  have? 

On  employment: 
None 

On  investment  and  the  creation  of  new business: 
None 

On  the  competitive  position  of businesses: 
The  aviation  insurance  market  will  react  by  increasing  somewhat  the  amount  of 
premiums  air carriers will  have to pay.  The rate of increase will  vary  according to 
the state of the market at the time, to the particular characteristics of the air carriers, 
in particular their safety  records and to the particular bargaining power of the airline 
to  renegotiate  its  premium.  Accordingly,  regional  carriers  and  general  aviation 
operators would be likely to bear a higher proportional  increase due to their weaker 
bargaining  power.  Charter  air carriers will  be  affected  by  a lesser  degree. 

4.  Does the proposal contain any measures intended to take account of the specific  situation 

of  small  and  medium-sized  businesses? 

No.  In fact,  current liability  insurance costs for European  air carriers generally  represent 
a  small  proportion  of  the  operating costs.  They  comprise  about  0.1% to  0.2%  of  total 
operating  costs,  with  the  proportion  generally  becoming  higher  the  smaller  the  airline. 
With  a waiving  of  the  limits  increased  insurance  costs would  comprise  about  0.1% to 
0.35%(2)  of total  operating  costs. Which  means that  the increment  will  be  insignificant, 
even  for  the  smaller  carriers which  might  be  more  affected  by  such  an  increase. 

Consultation: 

5.  List  of the organizations which have been consulted  about the proposal  and outline their 

main  views 

Member  State government  experts  have  expressed  wide  agreement  on  the need  to 
increase the current limits, to guarantee speedy and simple procedures in case of air 
accidents and to cover all air transportation  inside the Community  and to and  from 
the  Community,  irrespective  of the nationality  of the  airline  concerned. 

(2) 

"The cost implications of higher mandatory  compensation  limits for  passengers involved 
in  air  accidents". Frère  Cholmeley  Bischoff,  delivered  on February  1994. 

16 

All concerned organizations^ have been consulted.  All of them agreed on the need 
to  upgrade  the system  while  keeping  the  essential  elements  of  the  international 
system  currently  into  force.  They  were  concerned  that  any  improvement  of  the 
system within the EC applied to all carriers serving the Community. 

(3)  Organizations  consulted  were:  Bureau  Européen  Union  des  Consommateurs, 
International  Organization of Consumer Unions, European Community Travel Agents and 
Tour Operators  Association, 
International  Council  of  Aircraft  Owner  and 
Pilot Association, 
International  Air  Transport  Association,  Association  of 
European Airlines,  International  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Federation  of  Air  Transport 
User  Representatives 
the  EC,  International  Union  of  Aviation  Insurers, 
Association Européenne  des  Constructeurs  de  Matériel  Aérospatial,  European 
Regional Airlines. 

in 

17 

ANNEX  I 

LIABILITY  LIMITS  IN EC COUNTRIES(1) 

W/H: 

Limits of Warsaw/The Hague, as converted following  national  rules (or raised 
as indicated)(2) 

AUSTRIA:  Liability  under  the  contract  of  carriage  up to AS 430  000  per  person 

Obligatory  passenger  accident  insurance  AS  550 000 per  passenger 
SDR  100 000  on the  national  carrier 

BELGIUM:  W/H  applied  to  all  services 

No  domestic  services 
SDR  100 000 on Sabena and affiliates  - US$ 58 000 for charters and air taxis 

DENMARK:  SDR  100 000  applied  to  all  air  services 

Limits for  damages other than  death  and injury  are different  for  domestic and 
international  air  services 

FINLAND:  W/H applied to international  services. If the country of destination  is not party 

to the W/H the  limits  of MP3  apply  (SDR  100 000) 
SDR  100 000  for  domestic  services 
SDR  100 000  on Finnair  on international  services 

FRANCE: 

SDR  100 000  applied  to  all  services 
Limits  other  than  death  and  injury  are W/H  on all  air  services 

GERMANY:  W/H  applied  to  international  air  services,  based  on  law  on  conversion  rates 

(e.g. Francs Poincaré  250 000 =  DM  53 600) 
DM  150 000  for  Lufthansa 
DM  320  000  on  domestic  air  services 

GREECE:  W/H  applied  to  all  services 

In absence of  law on  conversion  rates, some court decisions are  contradictory 
National legislation  specifies a limit of DRS 4 000 000 applied to domestic air 
services (may not be exceeded if damages are awarded in the form  of periodic 
payments)  in the  case  of  death  or  injury 

IRELAND:  W/H  applied  to  all  services 

SDR  100 000  on  Aer  Lingus  (international  air services) 
Same amount  for  other Ireland  registered  operators 

( i) 

(2) 

Sven  Brise's  study,  see  footnote  3  (Explanatory  Memorandum).  The  study  did  not 
examine the  situations  existing  in  Austria,  Finland  and  Sweden. 
For all limits (except Portugal  on domestic carriage), carriers can avail themselves of the 
defence  of  Article  20§1  of WC. 

18 

ITALY: 

W/H as converted by  law  into  SDR  (international)  and LIT (domestic) 
applied to all  services.  Limits  specified  are: 
SDR  100 000 international  air services 
LIT  195 000  000 domestic  air services 

N.B. It should be noted that foreign airlines operating to Italy are subject 
to the law imposing the international  limit  of  SDR  100 000 

LUXEMBOURG:  W/H applied to all  air services 

No domestic  services 
SDR  100 000  on all  Luxembourg  registered  passenger carriers 

NETHERLANDS:  W/H applied to all  air services 

SDR  100 000  (all  Netherlands registered  major carriers) 

PORTUGAL: 

liability  without fault  (domestic  services) 
on  all  services:  Escudos  12 000  000  per  passenger;  baggage  as  per 
The Hague 

SPAIN: 

on all services: PTS 3  500  000 per passenger; baggage as per The Hague 

SWEDEN: 

SDR  100 000  on international  and domestic  services 

UK: 

W/H applied to all  air services,  raised to  SDR  100 000. 

19 

IATA  INTER-CARRIER  AGREEMENT  ON PASSENGER  LIABILITY 

ANNEX  II 

WHEREAS:  The  Warsaw  Convention  system  is  of  great  benefit  to  international  air 
transportation;  and 

NOTING  THAT: The  Convention's  limits of  liability,  which  have not  been  amended  since 
1955,  are  now  grossly  inadequate  in  most  countries  and  that  international  airlines  have 
previously  acted  together  to increase  them to the benefit  of  passengers. 

The  undersigned  carriers agree: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

to take  action to waive the limitation of liability  on recoverable  compensatory  damages 
in  Article  22  paragraph  1 of  the Warsaw  Convention  as to  claims  for  death,  wounding 
or other bodily injury of a passenger within the meaning of Article  17 of the Convention, 
so that recoverable compensatory  damages may be determined and awarded by  reference 
of  the  law  of  the  domicile  of  the  passenger; 

to  reserve  all  available  defences  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  Convention; 
nevertheless,  any  carrier  may  waive  any  defence,  including  the  waiver  of  any  defence 
up  to  a  specified  monetary  amount  of  recoverable  compensatory  damages,  as 
circumstances  may  warrant; 

to  reserve  their  rights  of  recourse  against  any  other  person,  including  rights  of 
contribution  or  indemnity,  with  respect  to any  sums  paid  by  the  carrier; 

to encourage other  airlines involved in the international  carriage  of passengers to  apply 
the terms  of  this  Agreement  to  such carriage; 

to implement  the provisions of  this Agreement no  later than  1 November  1996 or upon 
receipt  of  requisite  government  approvals,  whichever  is  later; 

that  nothing  in  this  Agreement  shall  affect  the  rights  of  the  passenger  or  the  claimant 
otherwise  available  under  the  Convention; 

that  this  Agreement  may  be  signed  in  any  number  of  counterparts,  all  of  which  shall 
constitute  one  Agreement.  Any  carrier  may  become  a  party  to  this  Agreement  by 
signing  a  counterpart  hereof  and  depositing  it  with  the  Director  General  of  the 
International  Air  Transport  Association  (IATA); 

8. 

that  any  carrier  party  hereto  may  withdraw  from 
this  Agreement  by  giving 
twelve  (12)  months' written  notice  of withdrawal  to the Director-General  of  IATA  and 
to the  other  carriers  parties  to the  Agreement. 

20 

INTER-CARRIER  AGREEMENT ON PASSENGER LIABILITY 

IATA EXPLANATORY NOTE 

The  Inter-carrier  Agreement  is  an  "umbrella  accord";  the  precise  legal  rights  and 
responsibilities of the signatory  carriers with respect to passengers will be spelled out in the 
applicable Conditions of Carriage and tariff  filings. 

The carriers signatory to the Agreement undertake to waive in accordance with the Agreement 
such  limitations  of  liability  as  are  set  out  in  the Warsaw  Convention  (1929),  The Hague 
Protocol  (1955), the Montreal  Agreement  of  1966, and/or  limits they  may  have previously 
agreed to implement or were required by governments to implement. 

Such  waiver  by  a  carrier  may  be  made  to  the  extent  required  to  permit  the  law  of  the 
domicile  of  the  passenger  to  govern  the  determination  and  award  of  the  recoverable 
compensatory  damages under the Inter-carrier  Agreement.  But this is an option.  Should a 
carrier wish to waive the limits of liability  but not insist on the law of the domicile of the 
passenger governing the calculation  of the recoverable compensatory  damages, or not be so 
required  by a governmental  authority, it may rely on the law of the court to which the case 
is submitted. 

The Warsaw Convention  system  defences  will remain  available,  in whole or in part,  to the 
carriers signatory to the Agreement, unless a carrier decides to waive them or is so required 
by a governmental  authority. 

21 

Table  1: Victim:  Man  40,  married,  2 dependent  children,  doctor 

EUROPEAN  DAMAGES  LEVEL(1)  IN  CASE  OF  MOTOR  ACCIDENTS 

ANNEX  III 

Injury 

UK 

Belgium 
Bf  59.6 

Greece 
Dr  25 

NL 
HFI  3.26 

Italy 
Lira 
2  124 

France 
Ff  9.73 

Germany 
Dm  2.90 

Denmark 
Kr  11.02 

Ireland 
Ir  £  1.08 

LUX 
Lux  f 
59.55 

Spain 
Pta 
178.45 

Portugal 
Esc  254 

Instant 
death 

Burns 
(A) 
(B) 
(C) 

Paraple 
gia 

Loss of 
eyesight-
total 
blind 
ness 

311  000 

325  779 

195  007 

224  540 

464  900 

307  098 

331  034 

81  347 

461  806 

351  098 

168  114 

229  724 

89  000 
99  000 
79  000 

81  978 

71 088 
to 
86  316 

526  500 

449  457 

310  947 

18 098 
to 
21  166 

498  466 
to 
567  485 

55  085 
to 
120  835 

109  198 
to 
127  790 

474  710 

705  576 

572  500 

531  871 

363  333 

466  258 
(486  258) 

674  795 

744  853 

132  759 
to 
148  276 

637  931 
to 
672  414 

586  207 
to 
603  488 
(623  448) 

93  981 
126  389 
93  981 

83  985 

16 811 
28  019 
16 811 

24  016 

607  407 

453  830 

280  191 

288  937 

37  659 

110  254 
to 
237  296 

225  499 

613  889 

537  871 

56  038 

290  465 

Source: Davies Arnold Cooper: Personal injury  Awards in EC Countries on an unlimited basis in respect of death or serious injury. 

(1)  The figures  do not  include  interest,  whether  pre- or post- judgment.  NL  and  Germany  have two  sets  of figures  in the  same  schedule.  The 
figures  in  brackets  include  estimated  medical  expenses  not  covered  by  the  State.  All  the  figures  have  been  converted  into  £  sterling  and 
rounded  up  to the  nearest  £.  Exchange  rate  of  21  June  1990. 

22 

Table 2:  Victim: Woman,  20,  single,  student doctor 

Injury 

UK 

Belgium 
Bf59.6 

Greece 
Br 25 

NL 
HF1  3.26 

Italy 
Lira 
2 124 

France 
Ff 9.73 

Germany 
Dm 2.90 

Denmark 
Kr 11.02 

Ireland 
I r £ 1 . 08 

LUX 
L u xf 
59.5S 

Spain 
Pta 
178.45 

Portugal 
Esc 254 

Instant 
death 

Bums 

(A) m 

(C) 

Paraple 
gia 

Loss of 
eyesight* 

blind 
ness 

1  250 

6 292 

14 912 

2 147 

210 122 

15 416 

2 069 

1 089 

8 102 

6 795 

67 246 

4 528 

44 000 
54 000 
34 000 

47 723 

7 579 
to 
8 870 

452 250 

370 569 

234 723 

478 250 

415 323 

251 404 

21 779 
to 
24 847 

498 466 
to 
567 485 
(1,074,985) 

466 258 
(486 258) 

61 205 
to 
83 729 

62 025 
to 
81 398 

318 710 

563 759 

517 514 

537 196 

63 793 
to 
79 310 

431 034 
to 
465 517 

472 414 
to 
489 655 
(509 655) 

26 770 

90 290 
to 
166 515 

63 426 
95 833 
63 426 

46 434 

529 630 

376 246 

16 811 
33 623 
16 811 

168 114 
to 
224 152 

5 937 

360 840 

157 441 

421 296 

423 013 

67 246 

325 465 

Source: Davies Arnold Cooper: Personal injury  Awards in EC Countries on an unlimited basis in respect of death or serious injury. 

23 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(95) 724 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

07 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-95-777-EN-C 

ISBN 92-77-99242-5 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

24