The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed in Montreal on May 28, 1999, was adopted as domestic law in the Dominican Republic on December 30, 2006 and confirmed by Resolution 16-05 promulgated on February 5, 2007.
Since its incorporation into the Dominican legal system, the 1999 Montreal Convention has been recognized by the courts as a rule of direct and preferential application in disputes concerning the international carriage of passengers, baggage, and cargo by air, gradually replacing the former Warsaw System in cases where it is applicable.
Dominican case law, particularly since the Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling dated March 30, 2011, has confirmed the full validity and normative hierarchy of the Convention, emphasizing that, once ratified and published, it forms part of domestic law as mandated by the Constitution of the Dominican Republic.
Another relevant aspect in judicial application has been the recognition of the rules of jurisdictional competence, including the so-called “fifth jurisdiction,” which allows the plaintiff to bring an action before the courts of their principal and permanent residence, provided that the requirements established by the Convention are met. This provision has expanded access to justice for passengers and has aligned Dominican practice with international trends in air transport used protection.
Dominican courts apply the Convention in cases involving air carrier liability (injury, death, loss or damage to baggage, delays), using a system of limited strict liability and, in cases of gross negligence, unlimited liability. They determine whether the transport is international based on uniform criteria and generally respect the compensation limits, unless there is a conflict with public policy rules.
The Convention takes precedence over domestic law for international transport; in matters not regulated, domestic law applies.
Regarding the liability limits established by the Convention in cases of air cargo transport, Dominican judges have issued several rulings both in favor of applying and against applying the liability limits established by the Montreal Convention. Specifically, in Constitutional Court Ruling No. TC/0073/2014, situations were analyzed in which judges decided not to apply those limits based on the circumstances of the case.
In a case concerning the civil liability of an airline, the Constitutional Court adopted the view that judges are not bound by the limits of the Montreal Convention when they consider that these limits violate the principle of reasonableness based on the facts of the case. For example, in Judgment TC/0273/2014, the Court stated the following:
“While it is true that the Montreal Convention, ratified by the Dominican Republic, establishes provisions that limit liability in air transport, it is no less true that the Constitution requires judges to rule in accordance with the principle of reasonableness—that is, by respecting the rights and guarantees of all parties seeking justice, and by ensuring due process of law and effective judicial protection. Therefore, the fact that the aforementioned convention forms part of Dominican law and constitutes a valid tool for judges when making a decision does not imply that the judge, in seeking the correct application of the law, cannot weigh factual circumstances that may alter aspects contained therein…”
In general terms, the application of the 1999 Montreal Convention by Dominican courts has contributed to greater legal certainty, predictability, and harmonization with international aviation law, strengthening the legal framework for air transport in the Dominican Republic and consolidating its integration into the global aviation legal system
In conclusion, the adoption and implementation of the 1999 Montreal Convention in the Dominican Republic reflect a process of regulatory consolidation that has strengthened the protection of international air transport users and standardized essential criteria regarding liability, jurisdictional competence, and the determination of the international nature of transport. The jurisprudential doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice has affirmed its hierarchical status and preferential applicability as part of domestic law, while the Constitutional Court has introduced relevant nuances by requiring that the interpretation and possible non-application of certain compensation limits comply with standards of reasonableness and effective judicial protection