Aviation Finance and Leasing 2025

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

CHAMBERS GLOBAL PRACTICE GUIDES

Aviation: Financing & Leasing 2025

Definitive global law guides offering comparative analysis from top-ranked lawyers

Contributing Editor Paul P. Jebely The Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation

Global Practice Guides

Aviation: Finance & Leasing Contributing Editor Paul P. Jebely The Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation

2025

Chambers Global Practice Guides For more than 20 years, Chambers Global Guides have ranked lawyers and law firms across the world. Chambers now offer clients a new series of Global Practice Guides, which contain practical guidance on doing legal business in key jurisdictions. We use our knowledge of the world’s best lawyers to select leading law firms in each jurisdiction to write the ‘Law & Practice’ sections. In addition, the ‘Trends & Developments’ sections analyse trends and developments in local legal markets. Disclaimer: The information in this guide is provided for general reference only, not as specific legal advice. Views expressed by the authors are not necessarily the views of the law firms in which they practise. For specific legal advice, a lawyer should be consulted. Content Management Director Claire Oxborrow Content Manager Jonathan Mendelowitz Senior Content Reviewers Sally McGonigal, Ethne Withers, Deborah Sinclair and Stephen Dinkeldein Content Reviewers Vivienne Button, Lawrence Garrett, Sean Marshall, Marianne Page, Heather Palomino and Adrian Ciechacki Content Coordination Manager Nancy Laidler Senior Content Coordinators Carla Cagnina and Delicia Tasinda Content Coordinator Hannah Leinmüller Head of Production Jasper John Production Coordinator Genevieve Sibayan

Published by Chambers and Partners 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AE Tel +44 20 7606 8844 Fax +44 20 7831 5662 Web www.chambers.com

Contents

INTRODUCTION Contributed by Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely p.5

GREECE Law and Practice p.215 Contributed by Bahas, Gramatidis & Partners HUNGARY Law and Practice p.231 Contributed by Lakatos, Köves & Partners INDIA Law and Practice p.252 Contributed by Sarin & Co Trends and Developments p.271 Contributed by KLA Legal INDONESIA Law and Practice p.276 Contributed by Mochtar Karuwin Komar Trends and Developments p.299 Contributed by Mochtar Karuwin Komar

ARMENIA Law and Practice p.15 Contributed by Concern Dialog

AUSTRIA Law and Practice p.38 Contributed by Freshfields Trends and Developments p.57 Contributed by GHP Attorneys at Law

BRAZIL Law and Practice p.62

Contributed by Basch & Rameh Trends and Developments p.83 Contributed by Nantes Mello Advogados

CAYMAN ISLANDS Law and Practice p.90 Contributed by Walkers

IRELAND Trends and Developments p.305 Contributed by A&L Goodbody LLP

CHAD Law and Practice p.111 Contributed by John W Ffooks & Co CONGO BRAZZAVILLE Law and Practice p.127 Contributed by John W Ffooks & Co CÔTE D’IVOIRE Law and Practice p.142 Contributed by John W Ffooks & Co

ISRAEL Law and Practice p.310 Contributed by Gottlieb Gera & Co Advocates JAPAN Law and Practice p.329 Contributed by Mori Hamada & Matsumoto Trends and Developments p.346 Contributed by Mori Hamada & Matsumoto

LITHUANIA Law and Practice p.351 Contributed by Šulija & Partners MADAGASCAR Law and Practice p.368 Contributed by John W Ffooks & Co MALAYSIA Law and Practice p.384 Contributed by Abdullah Chan & Co

EGYPT Law and Practice p.157 Contributed by Matouk Bassiouny & Hennawy

FRANCE Law and Practice p.175 Contributed by HENAFF D’ESTREES

GERMANY Law and Practice p.190 Contributed by Freshfields Trends and Developments p.211 Contributed by activelaw Offenhausen.Wolter PartmbB

MALTA Law and Practice p.403 Contributed by Fenech & Fenech Advocates Trends and Developments p.424 Contributed by Mamo TCV Advocates

CHAMBERS.COM

Contents

NIGERIA Law and Practice p.428

Contributed by Streamsowers & Köhn Trends and Developments p.448 Contributed by Streamsowers & Köhn PANAMA Law and Practice p.452 Contributed by Patton Moreno & Asvat PHILIPPINES Law and Practice p.467 Contributed by Tan Hassani and Counsels RWANDA Law and Practice p.486 Contributed by Liedekerke Great Lakes Trends and Developments p.502 Contributed by Liedekerke Great Lakes SENEGAL Law and Practice p.506 Contributed by John W Ffooks & Co SERBIA Law and Practice p.522 Contributed by Drašković Popović & Partners

SPAIN Law and Practice p.535 Contributed by Lopez-Ibor Abogados THAILAND Law and Practice p.555 Contributed by Tilleke & Gibbins VIETNAM Law and Practice p.576 Contributed by Tilleke & Gibbins

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION

Contributed by: Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely

Paul P. Jebely is the founder and serves as the pre - sent Chairperson of The Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation. Separately, Paul is also widely regarded as the leading private aviation lawyer globally, fo - cusing exclusively on advising ultra-high net worth individuals and their businesses. He has served as lead counsel on nearly USD23 billion in aviation transactions in addition to restructuring, dispute and enforcement matters. Paul has been the recipient of numerous legal and aviation industry awards, includ - ing “Aviation Trailblazer”, “Outstanding Contribution to African Aviation Development”, “Private Aviation & Yachts Lawyer of the Year” and “Private Client Law -

yer of the Year”. He has been repeatedly noted by nu - merous aviation, legal and business publications and other media for his aviation expertise. He is qualified to practise law in England, the USA (New York and Washington State) and Canada (Ontario). He com - pleted undergraduate and law degree programmes at Trinity College, University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall Law School. He also completed a two-year sen - ior executive leadership programme at Stanford Law School. He is presently also Visiting Scholar at the Nelson R. Mandela School of Law at The University of Fort Hare, South Africa. “Private Aviation & Yachts Lawyer of the Year” and “Private Client Lawyer of the Year”. He has been repeatedly noted by numerous aviation, legal and business publications and other media for his aviation expertise. He is qualified to practise law in England, the USA (New York and Washington State) and Canada (Ontario). He completed undergraduate and law degree programmes at Trinity College, University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall Law School. He also completed a two-year senior executive leadership programme at Stanford Law School. He is presently also Visiting Scholar at the Nelson R. Mandela School of Law at The University of Fort Hare, South Africa.

Contributing Editor

Paul P. Jebely is the founder and serves as the present Chairperson of The Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation. Separately, Paul is also widely regarded as the leading private aviation lawyer globally, focusing

exclusively on advising ultra-high net worth individuals and their businesses. He has served as lead counsel on nearly USD23 billion in aviation transactions in addition to restructuring, dispute and enforcement matters. Paul has been the recipient of numerous legal and aviation industry awards, including “Aviation Trailblazer”, “Outstanding Contribution to African Aviation Development”,

The Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation

Email: paul.jebely@haguecaa.org Web: www.haguecaa.org

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely

Arbitration and Mediation for Aviation Aviation v inertia

symbolises a movement towards evolved dispute res - olution for the aviation industry. It is a cross-industry, cross-cultural, cross-discipline, and collaborative venture that is supported by a core group of nearly 150 senior aviation, arbitration and mediation profes - sionals around the world – not to mention dozens of leading arbitrators and mediators on its lists of neu - trals – and one of the oldest and most experienced international arbitration and mediation institutions in the world. The way we were The best aviation industry attorneys live in the blank white spaces between the lines and at the edges of contracts, where law meets commerce and strategy in real time rather than frozen in time. They can, at will, escape the gravitational pull of precedent where it best serves the needs of their clients and companies to do so. This includes advising their clients and com - panies to choose the method or methods of dispute resolution which put them in the best and least pain - ful position should a contractual dispute or need to enforce arise. While a multitude of variables guide this choice in any specific transactional context, it is cru - cial to recognise that the best choice may no longer be the one that is square-bracketed in the precedent form of document used. Historically, the hallowed halls of justice that are national courts of law in various jurisdictions have been the primary battlegrounds for contractual dis - putes within the aviation industry. Yet, litigation (par - ticularly that involving multiple jurisdictions and com - plex engineering and technical subject matter) has proven to many in the aviation industry to be a fero - cious, unedifying, publicly embarrassing and astound - ingly expensive exercise when the only clear winners are the battalions of attorneys on either side. It is often a process that consumes vast reserves of bandwidth, capital and sanity. What is worse, the outcomes of litigation occasionally veer into the realm of absurdity when left to the judgement of those bereft of industry- specific knowledge or – worse still – neutrality. While the exact global total is challenging to pinpoint, it is nevertheless clear that current worldwide arbi - tration alone represents a staggering sum in dispute that certainly exceeds USD300 billion. The inescap -

In physics, inertia is the tendency of an object to resist changes in its state. Newton’s first law provides that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. The vast global aviation industry has been at war with inertia every second of every day for over a century. In the most obvious sense, we prevail constantly in taking flight by using thrust and lift against inertia. Thankfully so, given that our industry is a crucial artery of world com - merce which contributes nearly USD3 trillion to its gross domestic product annually. We have, however, largely failed in the battle against inertia in a less obvi - ous sense over the last century. Ours is an industry where contractual disputes have been an undeniable reality for over a century, yet our preferred methods of contractual dispute resolution have been grounded in the archaic. Thankfully, we are now amidst an industry and legal paradigm shift – slowly, then suddenly. But a paradigm shift does not happen in a vacuum. It shifts start as a whisper, an idea that slowly gains momentum, challenging the sta - tus quo, until, suddenly, the “new” becomes the norm. Inertia is a key force behind why aviation was some - how left behind and so remained as one of the final nearly untouched frontiers of arbitration and mediation prior to the launch of The Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation (The Hague CAA). Two years since that launch, The Hague CAA already stands as a beacon of specialised knowledge and expertise in aviation contractual dispute resolution, and it is just getting started. Far from being a solution looking for a problem, The Hague CAA was born from an awakening by avia - tion professionals that aviation contractual disputes require not just resolution, but resolution through the lens that understood the complexities of aviation, the commerce of aviation, and the community of aviation. As a non-profit enterprise with the mission to “pro - mote the use of arbitration and mediation as preferred methods of contractual dispute resolution throughout the vast global aviation industry, wherever and how - ever helpful to the parties involved”, The Hague CAA

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely

The benefits of arbitration for aviation Historically, aviation industry market participants have been largely reticent towards due consideration of arbitration. Such resistance stems largely from cultural factors and has been fuelled by inertia and standard - ised documentation. Still, to seasoned deal-makers, litigation is often viewed as a last resort for settling contractual disputes after they arise, whereas arbitra - tion is often viewed as a tool for managing business relationships in the context of contractual disputes that may arise. In the complex and often turbulent landscape of cross- border aviation deal-making, the five key pillars of effi - ciency, confidentiality, flexibility, neutrality and finality serve to elevate arbitration as the preferred method of dispute resolution and as a sturdy foundation upon which rests what is by far the most expansive platform for enforceability around the world. Efficiency Arbitration can offer aviation market participants an effective antidote to the costly and time-consuming quagmire of litigation. It empowers these parties to shape the proceedings, curbing the scope of the dispute resolution process, and in turn, helping to reduce costs. Bypassing the often tortuous paths of court procedure, arbitration can assist in avoid - ing the pitfalls of delays and unanticipated costs. Of note, the traditional courtroom spectre of procedural gamesmanship or weaponisation of process is greatly diminished in arbitration. Moreover, the limited scope of discovery compared to litigation in some jurisdic - tions also serves to truncate timelines and preserve resources, thereby enhancing overall efficiency. This system thus preserves parties’ energies for their true purpose: reaching a fair and tenable resolution to their dispute. In arbitration, efficiency is not a mere buz - zword but a fundamental design attribute. Confidentiality Among other things, aviation’s volatile landscape of fierce competition and rapidly evolving dynamics necessitates a measure of discretion in handling con - tractual disputes. In most jurisdictions (most notable in the context of international aviation by published case volume being the United States, England and Canada), court proceedings, by their public nature,

able fact is that in many other industries the strain of litigation has helped usher in the renaissance of arbitration and mediation, which are now embraced as preferred methods for resolving complex transna - tional contractual disputes generally. The 20th century witnessed arbitration and mediation solidifying their place as the dispute resolution methods of choice in industries such as construction, commodities, ship - ping, and insurance, where the technical expertise of the arbitrator and mediator was highly valued; this was, in effect, what is now regarded as specialised arbitration and mediation. Indeed, this preference towards arbitration and mediation is not merely a sec - toral phenomenon, but rather an international trend. It is also worth noting that courts around the globe, both common law and civil law jurisdictions, increasingly advocate for or at least endorse arbitration, particu - larly in the specialised context. It is difficult to reconcile these facts with the fact that the vast global aviation industry somehow remained behind as one of the last nearly untouched frontiers of arbitration and mediation. Ignorance may have been an excuse, but no longer in the case of aviation attor - neys at least. It is, however, apparent that two factors influencing persistent inertia within some corners of the industry are reliance on precedent documenta - tion and, bluntly, the greater financial incentives often tied to litigation. On this latter, admittedly controversial point, it does often stem from entrenched litigation practices and the economic benefits they present to certain stakeholders, rather than an objective assess - ment of the benefits of arbitration and especially mediation to the parties involved. In the realm of aviation, evolution is inevitable. The his - tory of aviation shows that dismissing advancements based on past endeavours (especially in ignorance of their scope and calibre) while begging the nearly- rhetorical question “is it necessary?” often proves to be myopic in the end. Much like a finely aged wine poured afresh, these age-old methods of conflict res - olution have matured. They have rapidly adapted to the demands of our modern industry and era, particu - larly specialised arbitration and mediation as offered by The Hague CAA, and now offer a panoply of ben - efits to the aviation industry that warrant much better informed consideration than in days gone by.

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely

can inadvertently expose business conflicts to the public. In contrast, arbitration in most cased offers a veil of confidentiality, protecting businesses’ reputa - tion and avoiding a “trial by press release”. For an industry where public perception can significantly impact trajectories, confidentiality is not a mere ben - efit but a compelling requirement. Flexibility Arbitration’s inherent flexibility affords parties signifi - cant control over the proceedings, much like a pilot and co-pilot commanding a flight. From the rules governing the proceedings to the choice of arbitral tribunal, language, and venue (including virtual ven - ues), arbitration offers a level of customisation unique to each dispute, paving the way for a more efficient and palatable resolution for the parties compared to In a courtroom, the tune of resolution is occasionally played in discordant notes that are bound by nation - alistic or other strings that bind. In stark contrast, arbi - tration provides a platform of neutrality in the often multi-jurisdictional (and multicultural) theatre of avia - tion contractual disputes. By enabling the selection of unbiased arbitrators with no geographical or personal ties to the disputing parties, arbitration ensures an impartial approach to dispute resolution. litigation. Neutrality This process significantly reduces the notorious “home court” advantage occasionally sometimes apparent – sometimes subtle, but still evident – in court litigation, which can skew the balance of justice. The neutrality of arbitration dilutes any disproportionate influence of a party’s domestic laws or practices on the pro - ceedings. In essence, it offers an unprejudiced terrain, fostering a fair and balanced environment indispensa - ble for effective dispute resolution in the international aviation industry. Finality Appellate review of arbitral awards is, in most cases, very limited. Judicial scrutiny of awards is typically confined to issues such as jurisdiction, procedural fairness or public policy. In contrast, many national court systems permit rigorous (and often very lengthy) appellate review of first instance judgments and often

permit reconsideration of both factual matters as well as matters of law. Avoiding appellate review mecha - nisms reduces additional litigation costs and delays and enhances the efficiency and finality of the pro - cess. The New York Convention: a 172-state enforceability solution Given the global footprint of the aviation industry, the enforcement of court judgments often requires a prevailing party to somehow navigate differing legal systems and potential for further contention. The task of ensuring that a resolution in one jurisdiction holds force in another is no small feat, and often a prescription for failure. This is where arbitration, under the robust enforcement framework of the New York Convention (the common name for the 1958 Conven - tion on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards), stands very well apart from litigation. Consider a simple but poignant illustrative truth: a properly constituted arbitral award is more readily enforceable in most circumstances in more foreign jurisdictions than, for example, either an English or New York court judgement. With the endorsement of 172 signatory nations, the New York Convention not only serves as a cornerstone of international arbitra - tion, but is also often described as the single most successful treaty in all of private international law. Much like an international peace treaty that seeks to harmonise relations between nations, this convention provides a comprehensive framework to ensure the global enforcement of arbitral awards. The New York Convention mandates contracting states to recognise and enforce arbitral awards issued abroad, subject to a narrow list of exceptions that relate to very serious defects in the arbitral procedure (such as lack of fundamental due process) or award, thereby casting a wide net of legal jurisdiction that spans the globe. While the undoubtedly high bar for refusal to enforce a foreign arbitral under the New York Convention has been confirmed by courts around the world, the key to successful enforcement of arbi - tral awards is for parties to nevertheless be aware of peculiarities and risks that arise in each particu - lar jurisdiction where enforcement is sought. Still, in the context of an industry that crosses borders every

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely

second of the day, this global reach of the New York Convention provides a semblance of predictability and coherence in an otherwise complex and fluctuat - ing international legal environment when it comes to enforcement. This level of certainty and predictability often proves invaluable. The use of arbitration in aviation contractual disputes The areas of deal-making where arbitration can potentially demonstrate its transformative potential in the aviation industry are as vast and varied as the industry’s deal-making. Arbitration’s scope in the avia - tion industry encompasses a variety of claim subject matters, all predominantly contractual in nature, and also embraces the more specialised segments of the industry. From the ground up The potential uses of arbitration extend from the high- stakes realm of aircraft sale and purchase, where many transactions involve monumental sums and critical business objectives, down to the ground-level services that keep our airports, heliports and – soon – vertiports functioning seamlessly. In the whirl of hangars and tarmac, where mainte - nance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services keep fleets airborne, disputes can cause significant delays and financial losses. Similar challenges can arise within the sphere of aviation supply chains and the domain of catering services, often operating under tight sched - ules and rigorous quality standards. Ground handling services are another area where swift conflict resolu - tion can mean the difference between smooth opera - tions and logistical nightmares. Disputes involving fuel services are often critical due to their direct impact on flight operations. Aircraft charter disputes are a further example, which often involve a complex interplay of contractual terms, operational realities, and interna - tional regulations. Aircraft lease returns can quickly trigger contention in a critical segment of the industry where equipment and time equals money. Finally, it is worth noting that arbitration can serve as a crucial tool for pursuing and managing investor-state claims, which can involve significant financial stakes and a complex interplay of national and international laws.

Despite the vastness of the forgoing list, it is critical to keep in mind the tenet that the aviation industry is far from monolithic, and its complexities and potential far exceed the scope of a single list. Arbitration and aviation finance generally Any blanket assertion that arbitration is unsuitable for aviation finance or leasing requires a change in perspective. Indeed, it has long been seen as suit - able, but historically mostly in situations where there were jurisdictional limitations on the enforcement of court judgments. Regardless of whether purely in- rem actions are arbitrable, the value of arbitration in aviation finance is not diminished, given the wealth of other dispute contexts it can effectively address. Contrary to the myth that arbitration is unsuited for financial disputes generally due to the limitations on the reach of interim measures ordered by arbitral tri - bunals, numerous mechanisms exist within arbitra - tion that allow for emergency and interim relief and uphold the enforceability of such orders. Furthermore, depending on the applicable laws, disputing parties in arbitration can often also seek interim relief from courts in support of an arbitration. Moreover, many complex financial transactions can benefit from the procedural efficiency, flexibility, privacy, and expert knowledge that arbitration offers. The rising use of arbitration in the banking and finance sector testifies to this evolving perspective. In fact, the London Court of International Arbitration reported that, at 26%, dis - putes in the banking and finance sector represented its biggest industry sector in 2021, overtaking energy and resources disputes. It is not alone in this trend, as an increase in the sector can also be seen in other arbitral institutions as well. Arbitration and the Cape Town Convention specifically There exists a degree of mostly misinformed appre - hension surrounding the interplay between the appli - cation of the Cape Town Convention (CTC) and arbi - tration. Importantly, it is not the intention of arbitration, particularly within specialised contexts, to undermine or supplant the CTC in any way. On the contrary, when the CTC does not apply or applies only indirectly, arbitration serves as a valuable adjunct tool, drawing its strength from the New York Convention’s robust

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely

support for the enforcement of arbitral awards more generally. The CTC, through its asset-based remedies, seeks to enable rapid and predictable recovery and redeploy - ment of aviation assets, while arbitration’s primary focus is addressing rights beyond the scope of these remedies where available. For the time being, no arbi - tral court is defined as a “court” under the CTC. Of note, this means that the CTC’s Article 42 jurisdiction provisions do not apply to any arbitral court. As such, any arbitral order seeking enforcement lacks the CTC- backed authority of an equivalent court order. Further - more, the New York Convention provides guardrails to prevent overreach by limiting the enforcement of arbitral awards in certain scenarios. Therein lies the true barrier between CTC and arbitration – the chal - lengeability of an arbitral award that overreaches in so far as two of the rather limited bases for a New York Convention contracting state not recognising and enforcing an arbitral award apply: (i) if the subject matter of the arbitral award is not capable of settle - ment by arbitration under the law of the contracting state (which would be the case if the CTC applied), or (ii) if the award goes beyond the scope of the submis - sion to arbitration (which, again, would be the case if arbitration applied). The benefits and use of mediation in aviation contractual disputes Though much substantive focus and bandwidth is placed on arbitration, it is crucial to highlight the equal - ly significant role that mediation can play in resolving aviation contractual disputes. While there are many forms of mediation, with the three main categories being facilitative, evaluative and transformative, we will focus on the most common facilitative form for our purposes here. Similar to arbitration, mediation offers numerous advantages tailored to the complex and cross-border nature of the vast global aviation industry. To begin with, mediation, like arbitration, provides an efficient, confidential, and flexible method of dispute resolution. The typically voluntary and collaborative nature of mediation can often lead to a time- and cost-efficient process to reach resolutions compared to the natu - rally more costly and adversarial processes of arbitra -

tion and especially of litigation. This efficiency is par - ticularly valuable where operational delays can have substantial financial and logistical repercussions, for example. Additionally, mediation also maintains confi - dentiality, safeguarding sensitive business information and protecting the reputations of the parties involved. This is analogous to the confidentiality benefits offered by arbitration, ensuring that the aviation contractual disputes do not become public spectacles. The flexibility of mediation allows parties to control the process and outcomes more directly even com - pared to arbitration, but especially compared to litiga - tion. The mediator facilitates dialogue but does not impose decisions, enabling parties to explore crea - tive solutions that might be unavailable in arbitration or litigation. This adaptability is crucial in the aviation industry, where disputes often involve a labyrinth of technical, regulatory, and commercial considerations. By encouraging open communication and fostering mutual understanding, mediation can preserve and even strengthen business relationships, which is inval - uable in the interconnected world of aviation. Much can also be said for an approach that allows parties to benefit from the collaborative and flexible nature of mediation while also having the option to transition to arbitration (or litigation, as the case may be) if a resolution cannot be reached. This ensures that the process remains efficient and that a binding resolution is ultimately achieved, providing parties with both the benefits of consensual agreement and the certainty of an enforceable decision. This approach is particularly useful in high-stakes, complex disputes where maintaining control over the process and out - come is essential. Mediation also transforms the negotiation process by creating a structured environment that facilitates productive dialogue and mutual understanding. It encourages parties to move beyond entrenched positions and focus on underlying interests, enabling them to find common ground and reach agreements that are more likely to satisfy both parties’ needs. This approach is particularly effective in emerging disputes in complex transactions where the stakes are high, and the relationships between the parties are critical to ongoing commercial dealings. It is fair to say that

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely

the role of the mediator(s) in managing emotions, facil - itating communication, and helping parties generate options makes the negotiation process more efficient and outcome-oriented. The Hague CAA The landscape of arbitration and mediation is dotted with a multitude of generalist institutions around the world. The unique dynamics and needs of aviation fuelled the launch of The Hague CAA – a truly spe - cialised, tenable and neutral arbitration and media - tion service designed for and in the genuine service of the vast global aviation industry. It must be noted that the unique mission of The Hague CAA is “to pro - mote the use of arbitration and mediation as preferred methods of contractual dispute resolution throughout the vast global aviation industry, wherever and how - ever helpful to the parties involved.” In this light, the mission of the Hague CAA in service of the industry extends far beyond the institution itself and actually benefits other arbitration and mediation institutions as well. That noted, The Hague CAA has meticulously crafted and continues to meticulously craft the best specialised arbitration and mediation solution for the vast global aviation industry. Thus, the launch of The Hague CAA likely represents the single most signifi - cant legal development affecting the vast global avia - tion industry over the last decade. Arbitration and mediation “for us, by us” The Hague CAA truly exemplifies each of the ben - efits of arbitration and mediation discussed above, and further offers specialised arbitration fine-tuned to the distinctive dynamics of the vast global avia - tion industry. The true beauty of the “for us, by us” nature of The Hague CAA rests in the fact that it was and continues to be engineered to the contours of aviation contractual disputes by a diverse global con - sortium consisting of many dozens of senior aviation legal and technical professionals working alongside several dozen senior arbitration professionals under the guidance of a nearly 75 year-old arbitral institu - tion – representing in sum well over 2,000 years of combined aviation expertise and over 2,000 years of combined arbitration (and mediation) expertise. While generic arbitration and mediation has undoubt - edly offered occasional solace, it has failed by design

to address the specialist needs of the vast global avia - tion industry, and thus failed to garner true engage - ment. The relatively minor and inconsistent use of arbitration by a global industry with more than USD3 trillion in annual economic activity, where the major - ity of transactions cross borders, amounts to a drop in the ocean. The Hague CAA’s burgeoning efforts – which are even demonstrably benefitting large gener - alist arbitral institutions – are not just filling a neces - sary void, they are redirecting the industry’s tide one clause at a time. There are several aspects of the Hague CAA, beyond its specialised nature discussed below, that set it apart from most generalist arbitration and mediation institutions. To begin with, the Hague CAA is a genu - ine non-profit foundation, which not only lowers the administrative costs for parties involved relative to most other institutions, but also ensures that its mis- sion remains focused on serving the aviation industry. Indeed, it is also notable that the mission of the Hague CAA is in the bona fide service of the aviation industry and not just the Hague CAA itself – to which end its mission statement reads “ The Hague CAA also mirrors the values of the aviation industry in a number of ways. In terms of gender, race, age, geography and other diversity, The Hague CAA stands as one of, if not possibly the most, diverse arbitral institutions globally. Moreover, the Hague CAA’s commitment to diversity and sustainability are expressly embodied in its rules and procedures. While arbitration remains a cornerstone of The Hague CAA’s dispute resolution framework, the deep integra - tion of mediation into its offering, underscores a com - mitment to providing comprehensive, adaptable, and effective solutions for the vast global aviation industry. As discussed above, the benefits of mediation, analo - gous to those of arbitration and then-some, make it an indispensable tool for managing and resolving the complex, cross-border disputes that characterise the aviation sector. The role of the NAI and importance of the Hague The Hague CAA is rooted in the rich arbitration and mediation soil of the Netherlands. To begin with, its arbitration and mediation cases are administered

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely

solely by the Netherlands Arbitration Institute (NAI). The Hague CAA may be “new”, but NAI was found - ed in 1949 and has successfully administered over 5,000 arbitration cases alone. It is one of the old - est and most respected international arbitration and mediation institutions in the world. In 2022 alone, the NAI administered a caseload representing more than USD2 billion in dispute worldwide. It is noteworthy that for the past century or so, the municipality of the Hague has earned its reputation as the international city of peace and justice. Its unique position as an international centre of decision-making and influence has led to it becoming home to more than 200 international organisations, including the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Court of Justice. It is now also the default seat of the Hague CAA. The seat of arbitration, distinct from its physical loca - tion, determines the legal framework. Parties may of course choose a seat different from the institution’s default seat. They may also choose a different physi - cal location – though the majority of arbitration and mediation today occurs mostly via electronic means, avoiding much of the need for physical travel com - pared to the past. For example, an arbitration admin - istered under the Hague CAA arbitration rules may be seated and/or physically held in, say, London, Paris, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong or New York. However, the seat affects crucial aspects of an arbitration, such as parties’ access to national courts (for example, for an order to freeze assets by way of interim meas - ures), challenges to tribunal decisions, and enforce - ment provisions. Jurisdictional support varies, with interventionist courts posing risks and generally best avoided. The Dutch legal system, however, is highly supportive of arbitration, typically intervening only to assist and uphold the process – including, for exam - ple, by way of a comprehensive regime for interim measures before a Dutch court. Specialised expertise The arbitrators and mediators involved in The Hague CAA bring with them more than just expert proficiency in arbitration and mediation. An arbitrator or media - tor’s insights into the operational, regulatory, tech - nical, legal and commercial aspects of the aviation

industry, combined with his or her unique understand - ing of arbitration, provide a rare blend of expertise that enriches the dispute resolution process. The Hague CAA encourages the use of its two lists of vetted neu - trals in both its arbitration and mediation rules. In terms of arbitration, the first is a list of sole/chair-eli - gible arbitrators, which consists of highly experienced, “top name” senior arbitrators around the world, a high percentage of whom have experience arbitrating avia - tion disputes. The second is a list of co-arbitrators, which consists solely of seasoned legal and technical veterans of the aviation industry, with years of prac - tical experience tucked under their wings, who are also trained arbitrators. All mediators on The Hague CAA list are highly experienced in aviation. The Hague CAA also maintains a large and diverse list of senior aviation technical experts, many of whom also serve as members of its one-of-a-kind Technical Stand - ing Committee, which continually provides input and guidance to inform The Hague CAA’s design thinking and especially its rule-making processes. Specialised rules The specialised arbitration rules of the Hague CAA are not arbitrary, but carefully crafted to expedite proceedings, improve time and cost efficiency, and avoid absurd outcomes that do not reflect the reali - ties of the industry. Both the arbitration and media - tion rules seek to address the industry’s critical pain points with litigation before national courts. There are many, many unique examples to point to, from the electronic submissions to virtual hearings to early determination, but perhaps the most poignant exam - ple concerns speed in arbitration in particular. The Hague CAA has broken new ground in the realm of arbitration generally by mandating an unprecedented default expedited procedure with shorter time limits and more potent remedies to reduce delay, providing parties with an arbitral award within only six months from the date of the initial case management confer - ence. The initiation of proceedings, and the proceed - ings themselves, under the rules are designed to go twice as fast as most international arbitrations. The contrast to litigation is even more pronounced – for example, the median length from the initiation of a claim to the conclusion of a jury or bench trial in civil

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely

cases in the United States is over 27 months, and that is not accounting for potential appeals. Critically, The Hague CAA is not frozen in time or stuck to a founding text or treatise. Its very hallmarks are flexibility and party autonomy, which, along with the overall structure of the project, allow it to develop and adapt in response to the needs of its users. In that light, it is worth noting that although its launch was preceded by many months of work on its arbitration rules and procedures, The Hague CAA undertook a wide-ranging industry consultation process immedi - ately following its launch, which resulted in the release of its first arbitration rule enhancements in February 2023, less than seven months of its launch. At the time of publication, a similar process concerning the mediation rules nears its conclusion, with the launch of a major mediation rules update imminent. These innovative rule enhancements bear testimony to the agility and dynamism of The Hague and reflect its commitment to evolving with the industry’s needs, mirroring the aviation sector’s constant push towards greater efficiency and excellence. A decades-long mission The unprecedented early adoption of The Hague CAA is evidenced by the fact that billions of dollars’ worth of aviation transactions are known to have included provision for The Hague CAA arbitration and/or medi - ation in the two years since its launch. The mission of The Hague CAA extends “beyond the courtroom” to fundamentally alter perceptions and practices around arbitration and mediation in the vast global aviation industry. Thus, The Hague CAA is focused on its campaign to “engage, educate and encourage” as it works to demystify arbitration and mediation in large swaths of the vast global aviation industry. While there have been no final awards rendered by any Hague CAA tribunal yet, the absence of a miraculous early caseload should not be misconstrued as a failure or a true measure of The Hague CAA’s utility or success. To leverage it as such is intellectually dishonest and adheres to a common trope that ignores the com - plexity of establishing any specialised arbitration and mediation institution, let alone one initiating a seismic shift in how the global aviation industry resolves dis - putes – a change that, by its nature, is gradual. The Hague CAA’s growing adoption is a clear indicator of

its impact and the industry’s readiness for innovative change in this respect, showcasing the potential for collective efforts to drive meaningful advancements. Specialised arbitration and mediation presently stands as a promising alternative for the aviation industry to traditional court litigation in many cases, and The Hague CAA offers the industry greater expertise, effi - cacy and efficiency in the resolution of contractual disputes by its industry-specific approach – dynam - ic, responsive, and acutely attuned to the distinctive nuances of the global aviation industry. As arbitra - tion and mediation slowly but surely continue to be woven into the fabric of aviation deal-making around the world in the years and decades to come, it will progress from “promising alternative” to “standard operating procedure.” A new flight plan has been charted by The Hague CAA, the course set, and the destination clear. The Hague CAA model clauses The Hague CAA will continue to transform the vast global aviation industry, one clause at a time. To that end, the following short-form model mediation and arbitration clauses may be included in various avia - tion industry contracts wherever helpful to the parties involved. These short-form model clauses are only for quick reference, and further variations and detailed information and guidance is available on The Hague CAA website: • Mediation: “The Parties may, at any time and with - out prejudice to any other proceedings, mutually agree to seek to settle any dispute or part thereof arising out of or in connection with this Agree - ment through mediation in accordance with the Mediation Rules of The Centre for Mediation at The Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation for the time being in force.” • Arbitration: “All disputes arising out of or in con - nection with this Agreement, including any ques - tions regarding its existence, validity, or termina - tion, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of The Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation for the time being in force, which Rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this clause.”

CHAMBERS.COM

INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Paul P. Jebely, Paul P. Jebely

There are various optional matters which could be addressed in the arbitration clause, most typically including tribunal composition and place and lan - guage of arbitration. In the context of aviation finance and leasing, these also include court-ordered interim relief, conservatory measures and relief pursuant to The Cape Town Convention or other applicable law in the context of aircraft leasing or financing, for exam - ple: • “The agreement of the Parties to arbitrate shall not preclude [the Lessor/a Finance Party] from obtain - ing orders from a court of competent jurisdiction for speedy interim relief, conservatory remedies and/or relief pending final determination pursuant to the Cape Town Convention or applicable law, for the prompt immobilisation, grounding, safe-keep - ing, possession, control, custody, maintenance and preservation of the Aircraft and its value, including preservation and protection from third party liens and claims, and the deregistration, export, recov - ery and delivery up of the Aircraft to [the Lessor/a Finance Party].”

CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA

Russia

Georgia

Armenia

Yerevan

Azerbaijan

Law and Practice Contributed by: Narine Beglaryan, Arianna Adamyan and Anahit Aloyan Concern Dialog

Turkey

Iran

Contents 1. Aircraft and Engine Purchase and Sale p.17 1.1 Sales Agreements p.17 1.2 Transfer of Ownership p.17 2. Aircraft and Engine Leasing p.18 2.1 Overview p.18 2.2 Lease Terms p.19

2.3 Lease Registration p.20 2.4 Lessor’s Liabilities p.21 2.5 Insurance and Reinsurance p.23 2.6 Lease Enforcement p.23 2.7 Lease Assignment/Novation p.26 2.8 Aircraft Deregistration and Export p.27 2.9 Insolvency Proceedings p.29 2.10 Cape Town Convention and Others p.32 3. Aircraft Debt Finance p.32 3.1 Structuring p.32 3.2 Security p.33 3.3 Liens p.35 3.4 Enforcement p.36 4. Other Issues of Note p.37 4.1 Issues Relevant to Domestic Purchase, Sale, Lease or Debt Finance of Aircraft p.37 4.2 Current Legislative Proposals p.37

CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Narine Beglaryan, Arianna Adamyan and Anahit Aloyan, Concern Dialog

Concern Dialog is a top-tier, full-service law firm, headquartered in Yerevan, Armenia. It has been a trusted partner for businesses and individuals seek - ing legal counsel and representation since 1998. The firm is renowned for its work in the areas of corporate law, labour law, competition law, tax law, contract law, family law (including child abduction cases), and regulatory issues. Concern Dialog has extensive ex -

perience in regulatory matters across the TMT, min - ing, energy, utilities, banking and finance, medical services, real estate, and not-for-profit sectors. In addition to its renowned consulting and transaction practice, the firm’s litigation practice is regarded as one of the leaders in Armenia for landmark litigation and arbitration cases. Concern Dialog’s a member of TagLaw and Nextlaw.

Authors

Narine Beglaryan is an attorney and a senior partner who leads Concern Dialogue’s corporate law and M&A area of practice, as well as banking law and capital markets, data protection and privacy practices. Her

Arianna Adamyan is an associate at Concern Dialog who specialises in corporate law, M&A, and contract law. She is involved in providing expert advice in these fields. Having previously worked at a business

role encompasses providing expert legal advice and litigating on behalf of clients. Narine Beglaryan has been a licensed attorney since 2012. Joined the Concern Dialog team in 2013. With over 15 years of experience, her expertise is recognised internationally, as evidenced by her inclusion in the main ranking lists, such as the prestigious Chambers Global and Chambers Europe. Prior to joining the Concern Dialog team, she worked for seven years in banking and the telecommunications sector (in-house counsel).

consulting firm and with experience working at a notary office, she joined Concern Dialogue’s team in 2023.

Anahit Aloyan is a newly graduated lawyer and an associate at Concern Dialog who specialises in civil law. She joined Concern Dialog’s team in 2023.

Concern Dialog Law Firm 1 Charents Street Office 207 Yerevan, 0025 Armenia

Tel: +374 6027 8888 Email: info@dialog.am Web: www.dialog.am

CHAMBERS.COM

ARMENIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Narine Beglaryan, Arianna Adamyan and Anahit Aloyan, Concern Dialog

1. Aircraft and Engine Purchase and Sale 1.1 Sales Agreements 1.1.1 Taxes/Duties Payable Upon Execution of the Sales Agreement Generally, the transfer of ownership upon completion of the sale agreement is relevant for income/profit tax and VAT purposes. The execution of an aircraft or engine sale agreement, including the sale of an owner - ship interest in an entity owning an aircraft or engine, does not, in itself, create an obligation to pay tax in Armenia, irrespective of the location of the asset or the seller’s domicile. 1.1.2 Enforceability Against Domestic Parties Under Armenian law, it is not required for an aircraft sale agreement to be translated, certified, notarised, or legalised in order to be enforceable against a domes - tic party. However, if legal proceedings are initiated before Armenian courts, any documents in a foreign language must be translated into Armenian in order to be admissible as evidence in such proceedings. 1.2 Transfer of Ownership 1.2.1 Transferring Title In Armenia, the title to an aircraft is transferred through a valid written agreement between the seller and the buyer. Although the owner or operator must record the transfer, such registration is declaratory only and does not, in itself, affect the transfer of title. The transfer of title extends to all parts of the aircraft included in the agreement, such as auxiliary power units (APUs). The sale of ownership interests in an entity that owns an aircraft or engine does not, in itself, constitute a transfer of title to the aircraft or engine. In such cases, the legal owner of the aircraft remains the entity, not - withstanding any changes in the ownership structure of that entity. 1.2.2 Sales Governed by English or New York Law Under Armenian conflict of law rules, the owner - ship rights and other proprietary rights over means of transportation and other property subject to state registration are governed by the law of the state in whose public register the rights over such transpor - tation means or property are recorded. Accordingly,

if the recognition of title concerns an aircraft that is already registered, this rule would apply. Where the recognition of title concerns an aircraft that is yet to be registered, the emergence and termination of ownership rights and other proprietary rights over the property that is the subject of the transaction shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. While Armenian law does not establish specific stat - utory requirements for the form of a bill of sale, to evidence the transfer of title in accordance with the essential elements of a sale and purchase agreement, the bill of sale must include: • a complete description of the aircraft sufficient for identification purposes (including quantity, if applicable); • a clear statement evidencing the full transfer of ownership; and • identification of the parties to the transaction. 1.2.3 Enforceability Against Domestic Parties A bill of sale does not need to be translated, certi - fied, notarised or legalised in order to be enforceable against a domestic party under Armenian law. Transla - tion may be required by competent state authorities only for purposes of filing or record-keeping. If the document is submitted as evidence before an Arme - nian court, an Armenian translation would be required for admissibility purposes (see 1.1.2 Enforceability Against Domestic Parties ). 1.2.4 Registration, Filing and/or Consent From Government Entities An aircraft may be registered in the Republic of Arme - nia if: (b) a municipality of the Republic of Armenia; (c) a citizen of the Republic of Armenia; or (d) a legal entity registered in the Republic of Armenia; and • the aircraft has the aircraft type certificate issued or recognised by the Civil Aviation Committee; or • the aircraft is not registered in another country. • the owner and/or operator is: (a) the Republic of Armenia;

CHAMBERS.COM

Page i Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199