“

 

    1. – Rb Rotterdam 7 April 2004, S&S 2005, 75; Mankowski 1993, p. 224. ↑

 

    1. – Hartenstein 2005, p. 11; Mankowski 1993, p. 225. ↑

 

    1. – Dicey & Morris 2006, p. 1775. Rb Rotterdam 14 September 2005, S&S 2006, 26. ↑

 

    1. – Hof Amsterdam 9 October 2003, S&S 2006, 64. ↑

 

    1. – COM/2005/650/FINAL . ↑

 

    1. – Report I, 21 November 2007, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), (COM(2005)0650 – C6-0441/2005 – ۲۰۰۵/۰۲۶۱(COD)), Committee on Legal Affairs, Rapporteur: Cristian Dumitrescu, p. 11 of 52. ↑

 

    1. – Hartenstein op.cit, p. 150-151; Van der Velde 2009 ▪ W. van der Velde, ‘Rome I’, in: F.G.M. Smeele (ed.), Conflictenrecht in ontwikkeling, Zutphen: Paris 2009, p. 27. Boonk 2009 ▪ H. Boonk, ‘De betekenis van Rome I voor het zeevervoer’, TVR 2009, p. 101. ↑

 

    1. – Firsching & Von Hoffmann Ibid, p. 383. ↑

 

    1. – P. Mankowski, ‘Transportverträge’, in: C. Reithmann & D. Martiny, Internationales Vertragsrecht, Köln: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt 2004, p. 1219, No. 1672.p. 87-88. ↑

 

    1. – Boele-Woelki & Lazić ۲۰۰۷, p. 27-30; Magnus & Mankowski 2004, p. 149-153; Vernooij 2009, p. 71-76. ↑

 

    1. – Brussels, 14.1.2003 COM(2002) 654. The document can be found at http://ec.europa.eu. ↑

 

    1. – Mankowski, Ibid, p. 218. ↑

 

    1. – Mankowski Ibid, p. 340 and 347. ↑

 

    1. – Mercadal Ibid, p. 261-262. ↑

 

    1. – R. de Wit, Multimodal transport, London: LLP 1995, p. 342. ↑

 

    1. – see Chapter 8, Section 8.1.1 on the two options in the Protocol of Signature. ↑

 

    1. – Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co. v Adamastos Shipping Co., [1957] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 271. ↑

 

    1. – for instance Article 7 of the FBL, the FIATA multimodal transport bill of lading. ↑

 

    1. – Finagra (U.K.) Ltd v Africa Line Ltd., [1998] All ER (D) 296. ↑

 

    1. – Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v Orient Overseas Container Lines (U.K.) Ltd., (2 Nd Cir. 2000), ETL 2001, p. 212 (Bravery). ↑

 

    1. – M.E. Crowley, ‘The limited scope of the cargo liability regime covering the carriage ofgoods by sea: the multimodal problem’, TLR ۲۰۰۵,, p. 1482. ↑

 

    1. – See for instance Rb Haarlem 22 May 2001, S&S 2002, 42 ,see OLG Düsseldorf 1 July 1993, TranspR 1995, p. 77-80 and OLG Hamburg 19 December 2002, TranspR 2003, p. 72-74. ↑

 

    1. – M.Giuliano & P. Lagarde, Report on the Convention on the law applicable tocontractual obligations, [1980] O.J. No. C-282, www.tm.gov.lvor www.uninova.sk, Article 3, No. 4. ↑

 

    1. – The same experts rebutted the argument that depeçage might be used to avoid certain mandatory provisions by pointing out that Article 7 RC would prevent this where necessary. Giuliano & Lagarde 1980, Article 3, No. 4. ↑

 

    1. – See for instance Kahler v Midland Bank LD., [1950] AC 24. ↑

 

    1. – Mankowski, Ibid, p. 23. ↑

 

    1. – وسیله معین ↑

 

    1. – K. Ramming, ‘Internationalprivatrechtliche Fragen der Multimodal-Beförderung’, TranspR ۲۰۰۷, p. 279-300, p. 281. ↑

 

    1. – § ۴۵۲a HGB. ↑

 

    1. – در فارسی به معنای قابلیت تفکیک است. ↑

 

    1. – به معنی قواعد تعارض قوانین می‌باشد. ↑

 

    1. – Basedow, Ibid, p. 39.0 ↑

 

    1. – Hartenstein, Ibid, p. 10. ↑

 

    1. – See Van Beelen 1993, op.cit ↑

 

    1. – Rb Rotterdam 18 January 2006, S&S 2009, 4. ↑

 

    1. – Basedow op.cit, p. 40-42. ↑

 

    1. – see D. Rabe, ‘Die Probleme bei einer multimodalen Beförderung unter Einschluß einerSeestrecke’, TranspR ۲۰۰۰, p. 194; Koller op.cit, p. 1189; Basedow op.cit, p. 41-42; Ramming op.cit, p. 340. ↑

 

    1. – See also Section 10.4.2 of this Chapter on the German multimodal carriage legislation. ↑

 

    1. – Mankowski ‘Transportverträge’ ۲۰۰۴, p. 1223, No. 1680; Ramming 1999, p. 341; Hartenstein 2005, p. 13. ↑

 

    1. – Rabe 2000, p. 194; Drews 2003, p. 15. ↑

 

      1. – دادگاه فدرال آلمان ↑

 

    1. – BGH 25 October 2007, I ZR 151/04; BGH 18 June 2009, I ZR 140/06. Article 2 CMR see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.5 on the hypothetical contract hinted at by Article 2 CMR. ↑

 

    1. – R. Herber, ‘comment on OLG Hamburg 19 August 2004, TranspR 2004, p. 402-404’, TranspR 2004, p. 404-406. ↑

 

    1. – به معنای نظر غالب است. ↑

 

    1. – Koller VersR 2000, p. 1189. ↑

 

    1. – See for instance Rb Rotterdam 5 January 2005, S&S 2005, 87; Rb Rotterdam 16 February 2005, S&S 2007, 102; Rb Rotterdam 19 July 2006, S&S 2007, 52; Rb Haarlem 22 May 2001, S&S 2002, 42. ↑

 

    1. – Article 35 EGBGB. See also Article 4(2) EGBGB which causes a choice of law to be no more than a choice for the law in question minus its conflict of laws or private international law rules. Hartenstein 2005, p. 13. ↑

 

    1. – Rome Convention Article 15. ↑

 

    1. – OLG Hamburg 19 December 2002, TranspR 2003, p. 72-74; OLG Hamburg 19 August 2004, TranspR 2004, p. 402-404. See also OLG Düsseldorf 12 December 2001, TranspR 2002, p. 33-36. The OLG Dresden supported a different opinion however. It did not deem a choice of law clause choosing the law of the country of loading, which was Germany, to cause German law to apply automatically to all ‘Teilstrecken’. OLG Dresden 14 March 2002, TranspR 2002, p. 246. Before the Transportreformgesetz a general choice of law was also deemed to apply to the separate transport stages, see OLG Düsseldorf 1 July 1993, TranspR 1995, p. 77-80. ↑

 

    1. – مقدمه قانون مدنی ↑

 

    1. – Art. 27 EGBGB ↑

“

موضوعات: بدون موضوع  لینک ثابت


فرم در حال بارگذاری ...