11. This item, technically coming up under Agenda : Item I, was found to be sufficiently tied up with Agenda : Item 2 to require combined treatment, although the item for primary consideration was no doubt the constitution of the Conference itself and the settlement of its rules of procedure. Agreement was reached t h a t Recommendation No. 28 of the 1954 Strasbourg Conference on Co-ordination of Air Transport in Europe afforded a satisfactory basis for the constitution of the Conference.
12. On this subject there appeared to be three alternative solutions available to the Conference, as follows :
13. In this connection, particular attention was given to paragraphs (8) and (9) of Recommendation No. 28. Some were of the opinion that an independent status was undesirable, while others thought t h a t a complete subordination to I. C. A. 0 . might not afford the flexibility of organisational and administrative arrangements necessary to secure expeditious consideration of purely intra-European problems. It was therefore concluded that the third alternative offered the correct solution.
14. It was further agreed that paragraph 9 of Recommendation No. 28—that the Conference should, at least at the outset, not establish a separate secretariat of its own but should request secretariat services from the Council of I. C. A. 0 . — should continue in force. There was some discussion concerning future arrangements for the secretariat, and in the end it was agreed that there should be no change from paragraph 9 of Recommendation No. 28.
The Conference therefore resolved that the European Civil Aviation Conference is constituted as follows :
15. It was recognised that I. C. A. 0. could not be expected to finance indefinitely the means for convening, running and preparing for the meetings of the Conference. The Member States of the European Civil Aviation Conference will therefore have to make such financial arrangements as may be necessary in the circumstances. The Conference, however, lacked sufficient information to discuss t h e matter at this time.
The Conference recommends that a further meeting be called, to be held at the latest during the tenth Session of the ICAO Assembly to be held in Caracas, Venezuela, beginning 19th June, 1956, to consider this matter. The delegations to this meeting of the Conference should seek powers from their Governments to make, if necessary, commitments regarding the participation of the States which they represent in the financing of the activities of the Conference, possibly from 1956 onwards.
16. The Conference considered various projects for rules of procedure, and indeed for governing its entire internal arrangements, and worked out the set of Rules of Procedure appended hereto as Appendix A. Attention is invited to the fact that these Rules provide for a President and three Vice-Presidents of the Conference, to be elected at its annual plenary meetings, to hold office until their successors are appointed—which will normally be at the next annual plenary meeting. The President is to have power to convene such next annual plenary meeting and any intermediate meetings during the time he is in office, in consultation with States members of the Conference and with the Council of I. C. A. 0 . Provision for the continuous occupancy of the posts of President and Vice-Presidents will improve the efficiency of the Conference and will facilitate the planning and execution of the meetings, as well as its liaison work between meetings. The Rules of Procedure also provide for distribution of the reports of the Conference directly to the Member States and for their transmission to I. C. A. 0 . as a necessary measure of liaison with that organisation.
The Conference resolves that its initial Rules of Procedure shall be as set out in Appendix A of this Report.
17. Although Resolution No. 1 furnishes the basis of a constitution of the Conference, and Resolution No. 2 its Rules of Procedure, these two provisions do not cover fully its relationship with other bodies. It was noted t h a t several international governmental and non-governmental agencies would wish to be associated with the work of the Conference in various ways. After considerable discussion it was agreed that the following four categories were distinguishable :
18. States and organisations in the first three categories should normally be invited to attend meetings of the Conference as observers, and consideration should be given on an ad hoc basis to determine what standing, if any, organisations in the fourth category should have at the various meetings of the Conference.
19. It was also noted that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in its Resolution (55) 30, had invited the Conference to transmit an annual report to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the Conference requests the Council of I. C. A. 0. to comply with that request by forwarding to the Strasbourg organisation the reports of the activities of the Conference.
20. Finally, it will be recalled that Recommendation No. 29 of the 1954 Strasbourg meeting stated t h a t the work of the Conference would be considerably facilitated if there existed an organisation representing the carriers of participating States, and recommended that such States encourage their carriers to undertake co-operative studies aimed at permitting the orderly development of European air transport. The Conference has made considerable use of t h e work carried out by the Air Research Bureau in this field, some of the documentation prepared by t h a t Bureau having been consulted for the purposes of the present meeting. The Conference desires to express its appreciation of this valuable work and of that of other organisations which have contributed to the work of the Conference—and hopes that such collaboration will continue in the future.
21. The objectives of this agenda item were to permit delegates to exchange views on the principles that might form the basis of a multilateral agreement for the exchange of commercial rights for international scheduled air services between the Member States of the European Civil Aviation Conference. It was fully understood that there was no intention to attempt to conclude or draft such a multilateral agreement, and the general statements of policy made by the Conference delegates at the beginning of the consideration of this item made it clear that the time was not yet ripe to attempt to develop a multilateral agreement replacing bilateral agreements in Europe.
22. Some delegations emphasised that cooperation at the two levels of Governments and privately-owned airlines was the policy to follow in order to obtain the best improvement in t h e situation of European air transport. Other delegations felt that quicker results would be obtained by concentrating on co-operation among the commercial airlines. A number of delegates noted with satisfaction that some of the major European airlines had in fact made considerable progress in co-operating among themselves since t h e 1954 Conference, perhaps partly as a result of the views expressed at that Conference.
23. While it was concluded that it would be premature to attempt to develop a multiateral agreement, a number of delegates made proposals that Member States should adopt partial or limited multilateral measures that would govern or supplement their bilateral arrangements. Those proposals include a proposal from the Netherlands, from Belgium,, from Denmark and from Germany, all of which were submitted at a fairly early stage in the discussions.
24. After a preliminary consideration of these proposals the Conference turned to an examination of the principles set forth in the Secretariat paper on a multilateral agreement. The exchange of views that resulted can be studied in the minutes of the eleventh and twelfth meetings of Sub-Commission A of Commission II. The views expressed by delegates suggested that there was some measure of agreement on questions of principles and objectives, although there were differences of view on the way in which these principles should be implemented and the pace at which States should attempt to move forwards in the direction of multilateralism.
25. The Conference then gave further consideration to the specific proposals that had been submitted to it and, since it seemed that it might be possible to achieve some kind of reconciliation between the Belgian and German proposals, with the possible utilisation of elements from some of the others, a Working- Group was established to examine the question. This Working Group developed a proposal based primarily upon the Belgian and German proposals. The Sub-Commission considered this compromise proposal in detail, together with an alternative submitted by the United Kingdom. The discussion of these two proposals suggested that there were two main trends of thought among the States represented—although on each side there were differences of detail and emphasis.
26. A number of delegations wished to propose practical measures to implement the Recommendations of the 1954 Conference.
27. To this end they were prepared to superimpose, upon present or future bilateral agreements and operating permits, but without modifying them, machinery that would permit a liberalisation of the grant of routes and traffic rights. This machinery was to be introduced for a trial period of two years.
28. It was essentially based on voluntary co-operation between airlines.
29. However, it also covered the case where—should this co-operation fail to materialise or not be sought—a foreign airline wished to obtain from the Governments concerned the establishment of a route and the corresponding traffic rights. Negotiations were to take place, as the case might be, on a bilateral or plurilateral basis. Furthermore, the working paper included a formal declaration by the States concerned, to the effect t h a t they intended to favour direct services between States to the utmost, and to refrain from opposing the establishment and operation of the air services of other Member States unless they considered t h a t such services were materially harmful to their national airlines or did not serve the interests of the users.
30. The other group of States felt that for the time being the system of bilateral agreements should be retained to deal with the future as well as the present exchange of air traffic rights in Europe. Delegates in this group pointed out t h a t the airlines were achieving valuable results from co-operating with each other and considered that the role of Governments should be limited to facilitating such co-operation. It was felt that the airlines themselves were most likely to know what forms of co-operation would tend towards the best economic results in the shortest space of time. These ideas were incorporated in the recommendation proposed by the United Kingdom which followed the lines of Recommendation No. 1 of the 1954 Conference in encouraging States to give favourable consideration to arrangements proposed by their airlines and continue to keep in review the possibility of a multilateral agreement at some future time.
31. The discussion of these two proposals indicated that, although both had considerable support, neither could command general approval, and it was decided not to make any recommendation to States in connection with a multilateral agreement for scheduled air ser- A'ices, thus leaving the recommendations on this subject of the 1954 Conference unchanged.
32. The basic principle on which the Agreement relating to European non-scheduled services is drafted is that Article 5 of the Convention itself confers the right to conduct nonscheduled commercial operations, and that it is merely necessary for the multilateral Agreement to limit the application of the " regulations, conditions or limitations " envisaged by the second paragraph of Article 5 that might otherwise be imposed. In this connection it might be noted that while the Convention itself refers to the rights of " aircraft " to operate, the multilateral Agreement itself speaks in terms of doing away with or limiting the regulations, conditions or limitations that might otherwise be imposed on aircraft.
33. In working out the rationale of the Agreement, it has been recognised that scheduled and non-scheduled operations have complementary, although independent, fields of activity, and that the criterion to be applied in removing regulations, conditions or limitations may properly be the extent to which the nonscheduled flights upon which the Agreement confers benefits may be said to harm, either actually or potentially, the operations of national scheduled services.
34. The Conference first considered the categories of non-scheduled commercial flights t h a t might be distinguished under this criterion when framing a multilateral agreement. Three such categories appeared :
35. As to the first two categories, it is proposed that they be allowed freedom of operation without the imposition of any of the " regulations, conditions or limitations " envisaged by paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Chicago Convention. By this it is intended, among other things, to do away with any possible requirement for prior permission. However, flights in the second category may be prohibited if a State finds that they harm its scheduled aircraft operations; and the States reserve full power to require such information as will enable them to make any necessary determination as to the extent of any such harm.
36. The Agreement does not affect generally the " regulations, conditions or limitations " that may be imposed, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Convention, upon flights other than those in the first two categories referred to above. However, if such regulations require prior permission for flights, the Agreement does cover the form in which i t may be required in certain cases. Thus, it is laid down that, where a series of not more than four flights is involved, the terms upon which such permission may be required must be prescribed in a published regulation, and the Agreement then proceeds to specify the nature of the information, the length of notice etc., that may be required. Where, however, a more extensive series of flights is contemplated, States are left at liberty to require more information and a longer period of notice.
37. The territories covered by the Agreement are in general the metropolitan territories in Europe and adjacent Asia Minor territories of the parties to t h e Agreement, and the activities envisaged, namely, those of taking on or putting down traffic, would be exercised exclusively within that territory. The Agreement is thus applicable to non-scheduled flights between any points within the geographic area defined above. The Agreement does not cover any transportation carried out beyond that area.
38. Although the Agreement does not extend to technical or operational matters, the Conference wishes to record its opinion that, in this field, the treatment accorded by its Member States to non-scheduled operations should be not less favourable than t h a t accorded to scheduled services.
39. The Conference has further considered the question of how the proposed Agreement should be opened for signature or adherence and ratification. In view of the fact t h a t few, if any, of the delegations present at this meeting were provided with powers that would have permitted their signing the Agreement here and now, a date for opening for signature is proposed that should allow States the time for any necessary intra-Governmental consultation. Certain delegates indicated that the internal requirements of their States might result in signatures that would be subject to minor changes on procedural or editorial points.
The Conference recommends that the States members of the Conference sign and ratify the Multilateral Agreement on Commercial Rights in Non-Scheduled International Air Services within Europe that appears as Appendix B of this Report. It further recommends to the International Civil Aviation Organisation that the said Agreement be opened for signature at the ICAO Paris Office as from 30th April, 1956.
40. No technical difficulties arising from the Chicago Convention and its Annexes have been reported in connection with the interchange of aircraft with crew. In certain cases, as when aircraft are operated away from their State of registry for a long time, or where an aircraft away from its State of registry requires to be repaired after an accident, the aircraft may need re-certification as airworthy. It is the responsibility of the State of registry of the aircraft to carry out the necessary inspections and provide the new certificate, but this need not cause any difficulty since, if a Government cannot send its inspectors to the place where the aircraft is located, Annex 8 permits t h e delegation of this function. Nevertheless, the fundamental responsibility for the inspection and certification remains with the State of registry of the aircraft.
41. (1) Problems connected with crew licences as dealt with in the Chicago Convention. There should be no serious difficulties in connection with crew licences when aircraft are interchanged without crew, since arrangements can be made for the State of registry of the aircraft to validate the licences of the crew that will operate the aircraft. Normally this crew will be of the same nationality as the new operator of the aircraft and will thus be licensed by the State of t h a t operator in accordance with ICAO standards. According to Article 33 of the Chicago Convention, any third country overflown would then recognise the crew licences thus validated. Cases where it is desired t h a t such an aircraft shall overfly a State not party to the Chicago Convention will be infrequent and can be subject to special arrangements. A general multilateral agreement by a number of States to validate automatically the crew licences issued by each other would be difficult to achieve at the present time and, because it would need to be based on detailed unification of licensing requirements, would tend to prevent the raising of licensing standards.
If it is considered that there is a difficulty introduced by the phraseology of sub-paragraph (b) of Article 30 of the Chicago Convention, which appears not to permit the validation of radio operators' licences, it can be solved in practice by relying upon the Atlant ic City Telecommunications Convention, to which it is assumed all States likely to make aircraft interchange agreements with each other within the European Civil Aviation Conference will probably belong.
(2) Problems connected with obligations of Contracting States under Article 12 and Annexes 6 and 8 of the Chicago Convention. The obligations of States under Article 12 of the Chicago Convention and Annexes 6 and 8 thereto may introduce international legal problems when aircraft are interchanged without crew, if transfer of functions of the State of registry to the State of the operator is contemplated. The State of the operator may arrange to take over the functions of the State of registry which arise from the operation of the aircraft and may, as a consequence, carry out on behalf of that State certain functions under Article 12; nevertheless, when the aircraft is operating over a third State the obligations of the State of registry under Article 1 2 would appear to remain unaltered.
42. While, therefore, the interchange of aircraft with crew does not appear to raise any technical problems requiring multilateral action by Governments, in connection with the Chicago Convention and its Annexes, the subject in general may benefit from examination by a study group of European States. The legal implications of Article 12 and Annexes 6 and 8 of the Chicago Convention require further study, particularly with respect to interchange of aircraft without crew. States may in certain cases also find it necessary to make arrangements to transfer some of the administrative functions arising out of the Chicago Convention and its Annexes from the State of registry of the aircraft to the State of the operator in order to facilitate the working of interchange agreements concluded by their airlines.
43. The Conference therefore adopts the following two recommendations on the aforementioned aspects of interchange :
Whereas the Conference has given further study to the problems associated with interchange of aircraft, and the airlines have shown interest in the possibilities of aircraft interchange and have proposed that the Governments should facilitate the possibilities of interchange by providing the appropriate legal and administrative background; and
Whereas the 1954 Conference on the Co-ordination of Air Transport in Europe recommended that the Council of I. C. A. O. should consider the need for an international convention on the charter and hire of aircraft, and the problems associated with its preparation, and the legal problems associated with the chartering and hiring of aircraft are already under study by the Legal Committee of I. C. A. O . ; and
Whereas the interchange of aircraft, particularly without crew, may involve problems in the technical, administrative and legal fields, which require the intervention of States, and the solution of which might be achieved by transferring some of the functions of the State of registry under the Chicago Convention and its Annexes to the State of the operator; and
Whereas the provisions of the Chicago Convention and its Annexes do not appear to prevent such a transfer of functions when aircraft are interchanged, the provisions of the said Convention and its Annexes being respected and the responsibilities of the State of registry of the aircraft under Article 12 remaining unaltered,
The Conference recommends :
Whereas as wide as possible a multilateral solution of the problems raised by the Chicago Convention and its Annexes in connection with the interchange of aircraft is desirable,
The Conference recommends :
44. Article 24 of the Convention provides for temporary free importation of aircraft which are on a flight to, or from, or across, the territory of a Contracting State, subject to the customs regulations of that State. It is possible that these might be such as to create a liability for customs duty if the aircraft were transferred to the service of an airline in t h a t particular State. The problem would be primarily of domestic concern and, subject to the laws of the State, capable of being surmounted by administrative action. Consequently, it is not considered to be a matter on which there is a need to arrive at any multilateral agreement.
45. When aircraft are interchanged, difficulties may conceivably arise in connection with the rights accorded by the Transit Agreement if the State of registry of the aircraft or any of the States overflown or in which transit stops are made, are not parties to the Transit Agreement. Such difficulties will be rare, however, and could be solved by direct action between the Governments concerned, so that no multilateral action is required in this connection.
46. No practical difficulties have been reported in the application of Recommendations Nos. 8 and 9 of the 1954 Conference on the Coordination of Air Transport in Europe, relating to the economic aspects of the interchange of aircraft, and no change in those recommendations is suggested while the bilateral system remains in force.
47. The Conference noted the information provided by the Federal Republic of Germany and B. E. A. and SABENA relating to the development of heliports and helicopter services in Europe. The possibility of governmental action to assist the development of these services was considered on the basis of a paper submitted by the Belgian Delegation. It was recognised that further development in the field of helicopter air services depends primarily upon technical progress in helicopter design in such matters as operating economy, safety, all-weather operation and noise reduction. There are, however, a number of ways in which Governments may help helicopter air services, and some of these are specially relevant in Western Europe.
48. The geographical subdivision of Europe into a number of separate States makes i t particularly important that there should be some standardisation of regulations applicable to helicopters and their operation. This standardisation should take place within the framework of the Chicago Convention and its Annexes, and some measures have already been adopted to this end. It is felt, however, t h a t special attention should be given to this matter in the next ICAO Air Navigation Meeting dealing with the Eumed, Region.
49. The 1954 Conference on the Co-ordination of Air Transport in Europe drew the attention of States to the necessity of safeguarding adequate sites for the future provision of heliports in central positions in cities and towns and conveniently situated with respect to other forms of transport. The development of helicopter services in Europe since t h a t time and the plans for future extension of these services confirm the need for action of this kind.
50. The question of traffic rights for helicopter services requires special consideration because, although helicopters may be regarded from the point of view of traffic rights as only one of a variety of classes of aircraft engaged in air transport, and although States are in general reluctant to give helicopters, as such, special treatment in this respect, some types of operation which the helicopter makes possible are different from the operations of fixed-wing aircraft. In the field of non-scheduled operations the helicopter is particularly adapted to certain types of emergency and humanitarian flights which are to be given special freedom of operation in the proposed multilateral agreement for non-scheduled air services in Europe. In the scheduled services field it may be possible for Governments to assist by introducing a certain amount of elasticity into the operating rights accorded to scheduled helicopter services.
51. Helicopter services generally operate over short stages, and delays due to frontier formalities are proportionately more serious to them than they are to the longer-distance services. States where international helicopter air services are already in operation have found it possible to take a number of special measures to facilitate their operation in these respects, and the fourth session of the Facilitation Division has recently requested that this matter should be kept in mind.
52. The Conference therefore adopts the following recommendations on helicopter operations :
Whereas helicopter services may introduce problems that are different from those of air services performed by fixed-wing aircraft; and
Whereas it is important for the development of this form of air transport in Europe that it shall receive a maximum of assistance from Governments,
The Conference recommends :
53. The Conference noted the report prepared by the Secretariat of I. C. A. O. on the status of implementation of the Facilitation Recommendations of the 1954 Strasbourg Conference on the Co-ordination of Air Transport in Europe. The Conference also noted the views expressed by the International Chamber of Commerce.
54. No other business was suggested requiring the attention of the Conference.
Reports drawn up by the Conference shall be distributed to States members of the Conference, to the Council of I. C. A. 0. and to other bodies as decided by the Conference.
Delegations of States members of the Conference may be composed of delegates, alternates and advisers. One of the delegates shall be designated as Head of the Delegation, and he may designate another member of his Delegation to serve in his stead during his absence. States and Organisations invited to attend meetings, and not in membership of the Conference, will be represented by observers.
Delegates, alternates, advisers and observers shall be entitled, pending the presentation of a report on credentials by the Secretary-General and action thereon by the Conference, to attend meetings and participate in them subject, however, to the limits set forth in these Rules. The Conference may debar from further participation in the Conference any delegate, alternate, adviser or observer whose credentials it finds to be defective.
Plenary meetings of the Conference shall be held in public, and meetings of its committees, groups and subordinate organs in private, unless in either case the body concerned decides otherwise.
Observers shall have the right to attend all public meetings and such private meetings as the Conference, or, in the absence of a decision by the Conference, as the private meeting may decide. Observers shall have the right to participate in discussions of the meetings that they are allowed to attend and to present documents, but not to vote or to make or second proposals.
The presiding officer of the Conference or of any body concerned shall declare the opening and closing of each meeting, direct the discussion, ensure observance of these Rules, accord the right to speak, put questions and announce decisions. He shall rule on points of order and, subject to these Rules, shall have complete control of the proceedings of the body concerned and maintain order at its meetings.
A presiding officer may limit the time allowed to each speaker, unless the body concerned decides otherwise.
The following motions shall have priority over all other motions, and shall be taken in the following order :
Reopening within the same body of a debate already completed by a vote on a given question shall require two-thirds of the number of States members of the Conference currently required to constitute a quorum for a plenary meeting under the provisions of Rule 11, in the case of a body on which all States members of the Conference are entitled to sit or a majority of the full membership, in any body of limited membership. Permission to speak on such a motion shall normally be accorded only to the proposer and to one speaker in opposition, after which it shall be immediately put to vote. Additional speeches may be allowed at the discretion of the presiding officer, who shall decide the priority of recognition. Speeches on a motion to reopen shall be limited in content to matters bearing directly on the justification for reopening.
A subordinate organ established by a committee or group of experts may conduct its deliberations informally, save that it may at any stage decide that these Rules shall be observed at its meetings.
Each State member of the Conference, if duly represented, shall have one vote at meetings of the Conference, committees, groups of experts or subordinate organs of which it is a member.
Subject to the provisions of Rule 21, the presiding officer of the Conference, committee, group of experts or subordinate organ shall have the right to vote on behalf of his State.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, decisions shall be by a majority of the votes cast; provided that the affirmative votes of a maj ori ty of those present in the meeting where the vote is taken are required for the approval of reeommendatidns and conclusions. An abstention shall not be considered as a vote.
On the request of any delegate, and unless the meeting otherwise decides, parts of a motion shall be voted on separately. The resulting motion shall then be put to a final vote in its entirety.
Any amendment to a motion shall be voted on before a vote is taken on the motion. When two or more amendments are moved to a motion, the vote should be taken on them in the order of their remoteness from the original motion, commencing with the most remote. The presiding officer shall determine whether a proposed amendment is so related to the motion as to constitute a proper amendment thereto, or whether it must be considered as an alternative or substitute motion.
Alternative or substitute motions shall, unless the meeting otherwise decides, be put to the vote in the order in which they are presented, and after the disposal of the original motion to which they are alternative or in substitution. The presiding officer shall decide whether it is necessary to put such alternative or substitute motions to vote in the light of the vote on the original motion and any amendment thereto. Such decisions may be reversed by a majority of the votes cast.
In the event of a tie vote, a second vote on the motion concerned shall be taken at the next meeting, unless the Conference or body concerned decides that such second vote be taken during the meeting at which the tie vote took place. Unless there is a majority in favour of the motion on this second vote, it shall be considered lost.
English and French shall be the working languages of the Conference. Spanish interpretation and interpretation from other languages will be supplied in so far as resources permit.
These Rules may be amended, or any portion of the Rules may be suspended, at any time by the Conference in plenary meeting by a majority of the members present.
Whereas it is the policy of each of the Les Gouvernements soussignés, undersigned Governments that aircraft engaged Considérant que chacun des États signain non-scheduled commercial flights within Europe which do not harm their scheduled services may be freely admitted to their territories for the purpose of taking on or discharging traffic,
The undersigned Governments,
Considering that the treatment provided by the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation drawn up at Chicago on 7th December, 1944 (hereinafter called "the Convention")—which applies only to the international movements of private and commercial aircraft engaged in nonscheduled operations on flights into or in transit non-stop across the territories of the States parties to that Convention and to stops therein for nontraffic purposes—is satisfactory ; and
Desiring to arrive at further agreement as to the right of their respective commercial aircraft to take and discharge passengers, cargo or mail on international flights for remuneration or hire on other than international scheduled services, as provided in the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention,
Have concluded this Agreement to that end.
This Agreement applies to any civil aircraft
when engaged in international flights for remuneration or hire, on other than scheduled international air services, in the territories covered by this Agreement as provided in Article 11.
(1) The Contracting States agree to admit the aircraft referred to in Article 1 of this Agreement freely to their respective territories for the purpose of taking on or discharging traffic without the imposition of the " regulations, conditions or limitations " provided for in the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention, where such aircraft are engaged in :
(2) The same treatment shall be accorded to aircraft engaged in either of the following activities :
provided that any Contracting State may require the abandonment of the activities specified in this paragraph if it deems that these are harmful to the interests of its scheduled air services operating in the territories to which this Agreement applies; any Contracting State may require full information as to the nature and extent of any such activities that have been or are being conducted;
and further provided that, in respect of the activity referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph, any Contracting State may determine freely the extent of the regions (including the airports comprised), may modify such determination at any time, and may determine whether such regions have reasonably direct connections by scheduled air services.
The Contracting States further agree that in cases, other than those covered by Article 2, where prior permission is required for the nonscheduled flights referred to in the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention, the fact of such requirement and the conditions pertaining thereto will be prescribed by each Contracting State by published regulation, which shall indicate :
the name of the operating company;
the type of aircraft and registration marks;
the date and estimated time of arrival at and departure from the territory of the Contracting State;
This Agreement shall apply to all the metropolitan territories of the Contracting States, with the exception of outlying islands in the Atlantic Ocean and islands with semi-independent status in respect of which any Contracting State at the time of the deposit of its instrument of ratification or adherence, may declare that its acceptance of this Agreement does not apply.
In Witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have affixed their signatures on behalf of their respective Governments.
Done in , the day of of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-six.