We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
24 March 2021
Despite the Ministry of Justice's long-term project to ratify the Cape Town Convention,(1) it has published no developments on the matter in more than a decade. Because the Cape Town Convention remains unratified and the aircraft mortgage and register legislation outdated and deficient, valuable aircraft parts (eg, engines) cannot be separately registered in the aircraft register. Therefore, the use of aircraft engines as a separate security asset from the mortgaged airframe is limited under Finnish law.
Finland's aircraft register is maintained by the Transport and Communications Agency. It contains details about aircraft registered in Finland, including:
The aircraft register also contains information about Finnish aircraft mortgages that are registered against the aircraft. However, there is no register in Finland for aircraft engines or any other parts thereof and the aircraft register includes no details about the engines installed on the registered aircraft or their owners.
Only aircraft mortgages, which are generated under the Act on Aircraft Mortgages (211/1928, as amended), are recognised by law to constitute a security interest over an aircraft (ie, the airframe). According to the Act on Aircraft Mortgages, an aircraft mortgage creates a security over the registered aircraft and its constituent parts and accessories (eg, engines, landing gear and navigation equipment). However, neither the Act on Aircraft Mortgages nor any other law specifies which parts are considered constituent parts or accessories of the airframe.
Thus, only a registered aircraft may be subject to an aircraft mortgage and not an engine by itself. Where an engine and airframe belong to the same owner, the engine is usually deemed to be a constituent part of or accessory to the airframe. Therefore, it would be subject to an aircraft mortgage registered over the aircraft, but could not be used as a security separately from the airframe. This often benefits the aircraft's and engine's owner and lessor.
However, where an engine is leased separately from and has a different owner to the airframe, it would be in the interests of the engine's owner and lessor for it not to constitute a constituent part of or accessory to the aircraft and thus be subject to an aircraft mortgage registered over the aircraft (ie, the airframe). In this case, the engine, which is regarded as movable property by law, could also be used as a security by way of a possessory pledge separately from the airframe.
Another reason why an aircraft engine lessor would wish to avoid such engine being considered a constituent part of the airframe is that by law, any transactions that involve the airframe would also concern its constituent parts and accessories (ie, the engine). For example, if the airframe were sold to a new owner in good faith, the title to the engine would also be transferred to the airframe's purchaser. This raises the question of when the engine is deemed to be a constituent part of or accessory to the airframe.
The concepts of constituent parts and accessories are defined in jurisprudence based on a wider Nordic legal tradition and precedents that primarily concern real estate. Under Finnish law principles, a 'constituent part' is an item which is:
An 'accessory' of the main object is an item which:
Notwithstanding the third requirement for joint ownership in the definition of a constituent part, an item is deemed to be part of the main object by principle of accession where it is installed on, attached to or otherwise incorporated in the main object in such a manner that:
If the principle of accession applies, the owner of the item installed on the main object loses the rights in rem to the item.
Finnish legal literature opines that where an engine and airframe belong to the same owner, the engine is regarded as a constituent part of or accessory to the airframe. However, there are no legal precedents in Finland that address this question. Further, Finnish jurisprudence recognises that there are usually other factors that speak for the contrary, including the following:
Whether an aircraft engine constitutes a constituent part of or accessory to the airframe must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the relevant lease and financing documentation as a whole and the parties' intentions. The risk of the engine being regarded a constituent part of or accessory to the aircraft can be substantially mitigated by carefully drafting the relevant documentation.
While Finland's ratification of the Cape Town Convention would considerably improve the aircraft engine situation and clarify the legal position, there is little hope that this will happen in the near future.
For further information on this topic please contact Maria Lehtimäki or Ville-Veikko Vänttinen at Waselius & Wist by telephone (+358 9 668 9520) or email (email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org). The Waselius & Wist website can be accessed at www.ww.fi.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.