CELEX: 62016CN0258
Language: en
Date: 2016-05-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-258/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

18.7.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 260/29
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia
   (Case C-258/16)
   (2016/C 260/37)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   
      Referring court
   
   Korkein oikeus
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Finnair Oyj
   
      Defendant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is Article 31(4) of the Montreal Convention to be interpreted as meaning that, to preserve a right of action, it is necessary, in addition to giving notice of a complaint in due time, that the complaint be made in writing within the times provided for under Article 31(3)?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If, to preserve a right of action, a complaint must be made in writing in due time, is Article 31(3) of the Montreal Convention to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of writing may be fulfilled in an electronic procedure and also by the registration of the damage in the information system of the carrier?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Does the Montreal Convention preclude an interpretation by which the requirement of writing is regarded as fulfilled where, with the knowledge of the passenger, a representative of the carrier records in writing the notice of complaint/the complaint either on paper or electronically in the carrier’s system?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Does Article 31 of the Montreal Convention subject a complaint to further substantive requirements than that of giving notice to the carrier of the damage sustained?