Common use of Travaux Préparatoires Clause in Contracts

Travaux Préparatoires. Despite only minor changes to the English wording of this provision in the 1999 Montreal Convention, its Travaux Préparatoires unfortunately shed more ambiguity on this facet. While the Preparatory Material makes it clear that: ‘To avoid different interpretations, it may be appropriate to clarify that this provision does not entitle a Court in any circumstances to interrupt or suspend the two-year period’,168 the Minutes do not reflect this point clearly. The delegate for Greece expressed this concern as follows: 165 Cass., 14 January 1977, 74-15061: ‘Attendu que, pour déclarer irrecevable comme tardive l’action en réparation engagée […] au nom de son fils mineur […] l’arrêt attaqué énonce que le délai de deux ans imparti sous xxxxx de déchéance par l’article 2 de la loi du 2 mars 1957 comme par l’article 29 de la Convention de Varsovie pour intenter l’action en responsabilité contre le transporteur aérien est un délai préfix et que ce caractère résulte sinon de l’expression sous xxxxx de déchéance, qui ne lui confère pas nécessairement, du moins de la finalité du texte telle que la révèle l’intention du législateur français qui s’est expressément référé aux seules dispositions de la Convention de Varsovie dont les travaux préparatoires expriment nettement l’intention de ses auteurs de ne soumettre le délai à aucune cause de suspension; Attendu, cependant, que si la Convention de Varsovie du 12 octobre 1929, […], prévoit que l’action en responsabilité doit être intentée à xxxxx de déchéance dans un délai de deux ans, il n’existe dans ces textes aucune dispo- sition expresse selon laquelle, par dérogation aux principes du droit interne français, xx xxxxx ne serait susceptible ni d’interruption, ni de suspension […]; Par ces motifs casse et annule’. 166 See, for instance, Cass., 1 July 1977, 75-15443; Cass., 26 April 1984, 82-12048; Cass., 24 May 2018,16-26.200. 167 Cass., 21 May 2015, 27/2015. 168 ICAO Doc 9775, International Conference on Air Law (Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air), Montreal, 10 – 28 May 1999, volume III, Preparatory Material, Montreal 1999, p. 71. […] the limitation period of two years stipulated in Article 29 had caused prob- lems in jurisprudence in the past. If this was a statute of limitations which could be suspended by national domestic legislation, [he] believed this should be clari- fied so as not to leave such an ambiguity in the scope of the Convention.169 The delegate for Namibia hence suggested that: […] a provision be inserted in Article 29 to make that point clear, i.e. that nothing contained in a preceding paragraph would affect the power inherent in a court seized of the case, to condone non-compliance with the time-limit referred to in paragraph 1 of that article.170 The Chairman responded that domestic law could indeed interfere in the computation method: […] the method of calculating the period would be determined by the law of the court seized of the case, and that it may well be that a court seized of the case, in determining its method of calculation, would in fact interpret it to mean that insofar as there had been some act which would prevent the normal period of calculation being done, by virtue of fraud or otherwise, it would be the relevant law of the forum to make that determination.171 This situation, in his opinion, could occur under certain circumstances, such as imprisonment of the claimant, but would not be different from the previous practice.172