Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N Sample Clauses

Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N. V., 659 F. App’x 392 (9th Cir. 2016), appeal before the Supreme Court denied. 175 Moscow City Court (Московский городской суд), 15 May 2017, N 4г/ 10-1239/2017, cited in: International Air Transport Association, 21 The Liability Reporter 21 (2018). It is interesting to note that the Moscow City Court, acting as a cassation instance, adopted a literal interpretation of the provisions, in total opposition to the decision of the French Cour de cassation of 14 January 1977 detailed above. The Russian Court pointed out that if the suspension or interruption were allowed, the Conventions would have explicitly indicated it: ‘Варшавская и Монреальская конвенции в императивной форме предусматривают максимальные сроки предъявления иска. Оснований для приостановления и перерыва срока исковой давности, равно как и возможности его восстановления, Конвенции не содержат. Если бы намерение было иным, то на это прямо было бы указано в названных Конвенциях’. It is worth mentioning that the Court gave consideration to the goal of uniformity of the Conventions to decline the application of domestic legislation: ‘Из изложенного следует, что в целях интересов перевозчика и стабильности гражданского оборота, установлен единый срок исковой давности, который не может произвольно продлеваться по правилам внутреннего законодательства государств-участников, так как цели унификации норм ориентируют на нежелательность применения норм национального права, особенно в случаях, когда имеется достаточно четкий и ясный текст международного договора’. 176 To the opposite of ‘caducidad’, the ‘prescripción’ would allow the computation to be interrupted or suspended. See, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx-Xxxxxxx, The Spanish Approach to the Limitation Period or Condition Precedent in the Montreal Convention on International Air Carriage of 28th May 1999, 3 The Aviation & Space Journal 5 (2013); Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx, El contracto de transporte aéreo de pasajeros: sujetos, estatuto y responsabilidad 323-326 (Dykinson, Madrid, 2013). limit established by Article 35 was unbreakable.177 This view was shared by the Court of Appeal of Tarragona in 2018.178 Taking an opposite view, other Courts still consider that the time limita- tion set out in the 1999 Montreal Convention may be suspended or inter- rupted pursuant to domestic law. This is the case, for instance, in Portugal, where the Court of Appeal of Lisbon held in 2017 that the time limits of the 1999 Montreal Convention could be subject to suspension or interrupt...

Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N. V., a public company with limited liability (naamloze vennootschap) incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, registered under the number 33014286 and having its registered office at Amstelveen, the Netherlands, hereinafter referred to as “KL”;

Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N. V., a public company with limited liability incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, registered under number 33014286, whose registered office is at Amstelveen, the Netherlands, represented by X.X. Van Wijk and R.A. Ruijter, duly empowered by resolutions of the Management Board and the Supervisory Board of 29 September 2003, hereinafter referred to as “KLM” or the “Company”,

Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N. V., a public company with limited liability (naamloze vennootschap) incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, registered under the number 33014286 and having its registered office at Amstelveen, the Netherlands, hereinafter referred to as “KL”; (Parties 2 through 7 hereinafter referred jointly to as the “Sellers”, the parties 1 through 7 hereinafter referred to jointly as the “Parties” and individually also as a “Party”)

Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N. V., next business names KLM and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 00, 0000XX Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxxx, pursue its business activities in the Czech Republic by its registered branch: (hereinafter ‘Tenant’) The Landlord and the Tenant are hereinafter jointly referred to as the ‘Parties’ or ‘Contracting Parties’ or individually as a ‘Party’ or ‘Contracting Party’. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1746(2) of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., the Civil Code, as amended (hereinafter the ‘Civil Code’), the Parties have entered into the Agreement amending Contract reg. no. 0111003018 (hereinafter the ‘Contract’):

Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N. V., druhými obchodními jmény KLM a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 00, 0000XX Xxxxxxxxxx, Nizozemské království, podnikající v ČR prostřednictvím odštěpného závodu: (xxxx xxx „Nájemce“) Pronajímatel a Nájemce xxxx společně jen „Strany“ nebo „Smluvní strany“ či jednotlivě „Strana“ nebo „Smluvní strana“. Strany uzavírají v souladu s ustanovením § 1746 odst. 2 zákona č. 89/2012 Sb., občanský zákoník, ve znění pozdějších předpisů (xxxx xxx „Občanský zákoník“), následující Dohodu ke Smlouvě o nájmu prostoru sloužícího podnikání a poskytování některých služeb č. ev. 0111003018 (xxxx xxx „Smlouva“):