31. Where it should be argued that, in this case, because of the state reserve contained in the sixth paragraph of the first paragraph of the compromise, a parallel distinction should be made, there is no need to challenge the question put to the Tribunal as to whether a damage (or even its disposition) is owed to one state by the behavioural behaviour of another state. , such a distinction could only be based on the legal nature of the registers in international law that the Court of Justice has requested and to apply in order to rule on question A. In this context, Article 22 of the draft articles on Member States` liability, 1977[30], the requirement for internal remedies is imposed only if it is an “result obligation” which indicates that this result or result result is the result of a moderate result acquired by the State or an “obligation” to 1 The Commission has adopted the 2000,000,000 000 000 0 regardless of whether this draft article decides whether the exhaustion of internal remedies is characterized as a “procedural regulation” or “factual governance” which the Tribunal considers to be it is clear that the legal characteristics of the international registers applicable in this case are fundamentally deviated from those of the board covered by section 1. Article 1 of the Services Agreement states that “the contracting parties agree to each other`s rights listed in the annex.” In 1994, the European Court of Justice was able to improve the interoperability of services, which covered services from 1994 to 1999. as a straight rope from one gvement to another. Moreover, it is clear that the purpose and purpose of a service agreement in this area is the operation of air transport services, the obligation for the parties concerned to authorize these operations and the obligation to “execute”; It is even less an obligation that indicates that a “result of equivalence” can be obtained by postage behaviour if it refuses to authorize exploitation. With regard to the issue we are debating, there is an important difference between the obligation for a state to treat a standard for foreigners admitted to its territory on its territory and the obligation for a state to authorize the operation of transport services to and beyond its territory. In the latter case, due to the nature of enterprise transport services, no alternative, which can normally be considered “equivalent”, can replace the effective authorisation to operate these services.

Publié le