EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Join this forum to discuss the latest news that happened in the world of commercial aviation.

Moderator: Latest news team

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 34844
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sn26567 » 27 Feb 2017, 22:05

sn26567 wrote:
25 Feb 2017, 00:44
Five airlines that fly into Europe (American, Etihad, Emirates, Singapore and Turkish Airlines) have been told they must pay compensation to passengers for delays.

These airlines will have to obey European laws or be taken to court.

All had told the Civil Aviation Authority that they did not pay compensation when their delays meant passengers missed a connecting flight.
Emirates (UAE) vehemently denied UK CAA claims over flight delay compensation, and will “rigorously” defend its position against the blanket application of European law.
André
ex Sabena #26567

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 16 Apr 2017, 16:06

There is an in-between verdict from a regional Dutch civil court (Kantonrechter Maastricht) about delayed Jetairfly-flights from 2014:
http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraa ... :2017:3003
The court decision is too long to translate. But basicly the court says that the passengers have the right to claim compensation direct from Jetairfly, though they didn't had a contract with Jetairfly, but with a German touroperator.

The related flights were mentionned in the topic "Abnormalities in 2014":
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=51989&start=360#p306757

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 34844
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sn26567 » 04 May 2017, 16:50

Airlines might not have to pay compensation for flight delays if an aircraft is held up as a result of a bird strike, the European Court of Justice said on Thursday (today), calling such an event an "extraordinary circumstance".

http://www.reuters.com/article/europe-a ... SL8N1I65Z1

And for those who are interested, here is a link to the judgement: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/d ... cid=490888

... and its conclusions:

1. Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a collision between an aircraft and a bird is classified under the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that cancellation or delay of a flight is not due to extraordinary circumstances when that cancellation or delay is the result of the use by the air carrier of an expert of its choice to carry out fresh safety checks necessitated by a collision with a bird after those checks have already been carried out by an expert authorised under the applicable rules.

3. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘reasonable measures’ which an air carrier must take in order to reduce or even prevent the risks of collision with a bird and thus be released from its obligation to compensate passengers under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 include control measures preventing the presence of such birds provided that, in particular at the technical and administrative levels, such measures can actually be taken by that air carrier, that those measures do not require it to make intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking and that that carrier has shown that those measures were actually taken as regards the flight affected by the collision with a bird, it being for the referring court to satisfy itself that those conditions have been met.

4. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a delay to a flight equal to or in excess of three hours in arrival caused not only by extraordinary circumstances, which could not have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation and which were subject to all reasonable measures by the air carrier to avoid the consequences thereof, but also in other circumstances not in that category, the delay caused by the first event must be deducted from the total length of the delay in arrival of the flight concerned in order to assess whether compensation for the delay in arrival of that flight must be paid as provided for in Article 7 of that regulation.
André
ex Sabena #26567

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 01 Jul 2017, 16:41

Sometimes it's hard to understand how judges think/decide. Like this court verdict from 2nd June 2017, from a Dutch "kantonrechter" at Rotterdam (a "kantonrechter" is comparable to a Belgian vrederechter/juge de paix). This judge ruled that a strike is no extraordinary circumstance because a strike means (the judge says) that the airline is badly managed:

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzie ... :2017:3744

User avatar
Yuqu12
Posts: 435
Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 09:41

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Yuqu12 » 02 Jul 2017, 10:07

If the strike is announced, the judge is imo right as the airline has the time to find a solution.

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 12 Aug 2017, 09:59

sn26567 wrote:
11 Aug 2017, 17:07
luchtzak wrote:
02 Aug 2017, 10:57
Charlie Roy wrote:
02 Aug 2017, 10:52
Yesterday's Air Transat service from Brussels to Montreal was diverted to Ottawa due to bad weather at Montreal. Passengers called police when stuck on the tarmac for hours with no air-conditioning or water!
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/01/weath ... 149AMStory
Indeed, Andre also reported: https://www.aviation24.be/forums/viewtopic ... 75#p354175
Air Transat passengers who endured that lengthy tarmac delay in Ottawa last week are being offered $400 each. That's less than under EU261: they should have received €600 !!!
CBC has nicely summarised the sequence of events: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ai ... -1.4240405
Based upon Air Transat's statement that has been published by CBC (see link below), it is extraordinary circumstances as per 261/2004: "adverse weather conditions". So it depends on what exactly caused the ongoing delays after the diversion: a delayed slot, a refusal by authorities to refuel the aircraft on the runway, work-overload by refuelling staff due to the many diversions, a wrong decision from ground staff, a misunderstanding crew-operations, ...
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/do ... 70904.html

CBC reports that there will be a public hearing in Ottawa on 30-31 August. Passengers will have to wait for the result from that meeting to know if they are indeed allowed to the full 600 Euro as per the EU legislation.

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 07 Sep 2017, 19:03

Decision EU Court of Justice, 7th Sept 2017: "...The compensation payable to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of a connecting flight must be calculated according to the radial distance between the departure and arrival airports. The fact that the distance actually covered by such a flight is, as a result of the connection, greater than the distance between the departure and arrival airports has no impact on the calculation of compensation..."

Three passengers from a Brussels Airlines flight Rome-Brussels / Brussels-Hamburg demanded 400 Euro because they flew 1.656 kms (1.173 kms + 483 kms). The court decides that compensation is 250 Euro because Rome-Hamburg is 1.326 kms.
EN:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_453600/nl/
NL:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_453607/nl/
FR:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_452411/nl/

User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11144
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by luchtzak » 26 Jan 2018, 01:48

TUI Fly Belgium ordered to pay €40,000 in compensations after delayed flight.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/tui-f ... ed-flight/

I have mixed feelings on the verdict of the judge. I can understand that you ask for a compensation but the reason of the delay seems acceptable. And ... a delay of four hours is not the end of the world either ...

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 34844
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by sn26567 » 26 Jan 2018, 09:15

luchtzak wrote:
26 Jan 2018, 01:48
And ... a delay of four hours is not the end of the world either ...
Tell that to a businessman on a tight schedule...
André
ex Sabena #26567

AirOpinion
Posts: 118
Joined: 11 Feb 2013, 18:38

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by AirOpinion » 26 Jan 2018, 10:14

sn26567 wrote:
26 Jan 2018, 09:15
Tell that to a businessman on a tight schedule...
I disagree, if you plan with no margin... you get no margin.

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 26 Jan 2018, 13:31

luchtzak wrote:
26 Jan 2018, 01:48
TUI Fly Belgium ordered to pay €40,000 in compensations after delayed flight.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/tui-f ... ed-flight/

I have mixed feelings on the verdict of the judge. I can understand that you ask for a compensation but the reason of the delay seems acceptable. And ... a delay of four hours is not the end of the world either ...
It's one of those court verdicts that will probably be overruled by an Appeal court. Not that long ago, a Dutch judge (a "kantonrechter" = a vrederechter / juge de paix) ruled that a bird strike is no reason to avoid the indemnity of 261/2004 because Boeing has a standard operations manual "bird strike: what to do". So bird strikes are no extraordinary circumstance: they're part of standard flight operations, the Dutch judge ruled.

User avatar
Yuqu12
Posts: 435
Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 09:41

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Yuqu12 » 26 Jan 2018, 15:25

So after this judgment, every airline should expect unexpected security checks as there is no hand of god? I can understand that you try to protect passengers, but where does it stop? Could the next step be that airlines have to pay for wildcat strikes of baggage handlers or ATC-towers?

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 26 Jan 2018, 18:10

Yuqu12 wrote:
26 Jan 2018, 15:25
So after this judgment, every airline should expect unexpected security checks as there is no hand of god? I can understand that you try to protect passengers, but where does it stop? Could the next step be that airlines have to pay for wildcat strikes of baggage handlers or ATC-towers?
Methinks that an unexpected and unannounced security check is indeed an "extraordinary circumstance" that an airline cannot prevent or avoid. Thus: no indemnity to be paid. From EU-Rule 261/2004:

(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

User avatar
luchtzak
Posts: 11144
Joined: 18 Sep 2002, 00:00
Location: Hofstade, Zemst - Belgium
Contact:

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by luchtzak » 26 Jan 2018, 18:20

But in the verdict the delay due to extra security check was only 2 hours, the judge questioned that the flight had an extra 2 hours delay hence he ruled in favour of the plaintiffs.

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 26 Jan 2018, 20:10

Whilst I was looking for similar court cases, I have found this: a recent court case (07/12/2017) that an airline has to pay indemnity when there is just a general NOTAM "ATC strike in Italy". When a particular flight is cancelled, there should be a cancellation order for that specific flight.

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzie ... :2017:6612

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 04 Apr 2018, 00:24

Passenger wrote:
26 Jan 2018, 20:10
Whilst I was looking for similar court cases, I have found this: a recent court case (07/12/2017) that an airline has to pay indemnity when there is just a general NOTAM "ATC strike in Italy". When a particular flight is cancelled, there should be a cancellation order for that specific flight.

https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzie ... :2017:6612
Another court judgement with the same principle: a general strike warning, even with a NOTAM "reduce flights by 20%", is no valid reason to cancel a flight. This time, it was for a flight Eindhoven-Marrakech, and the strike was an ATC strike in France". The Dutch judge rules that airlines are only allowed to cancel a flight when ordered so by ATC to cancel that particular flight:
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzie ... :2018:1511

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 18 Apr 2018, 15:19

Verdict EU Court of Justice, 17/04/2018:

"...A ‘wildcat strike’ by flight staff following the surprise announcement of a restructuring does not constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, releasing the airline from its obligation to pay compensation in the event of cancellation or long delay of flight... The risks arising from the social consequences that go with such measures are inherent in the normal exercise of the airline’s activity..."

EN:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_975019/nl/
NL:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_975026/nl/
FR:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_975018/nl/

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 26 Jul 2018, 16:49

On 11th December 2017, there was snowfall at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. The airport authorities therefore had to close the runways every now and then for cleaning/clearance, thus causing some traffic delays. Ryanair then cancelled FR2334 Malaga-Amsterdam, telling the passengers the reason was extreme weather at Amsterdam. Thus extraordinary circumstances - thus no indemnity.

A Dutch judge ("kantonrechter") ruled on 18th July 2018 that there was no cancellation or refusal by AMS authorities for FR2334, and that Ryanair therefore had to operate the flight. And therefore, Ryanair has to pay the indemnity of 400 € pp, the Dutch judge rules.

Full judgement - Dutch only:
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzie ... :2018:6257
Backup link:
https://linkeddata.overheid.nl/front/po ... :2018:6257

Passenger
Posts: 6051
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Passenger » 21 Aug 2018, 16:56

In-depth article (21/08/2018) by law firm Sirius Legal "is a strike by airline staff a valid reason for the indemnity?".

It seems the article is in Dutch only at this moment:
https://travel360benelux.com/nl/sirius- ... mpensatie/

Ansett
Posts: 321
Joined: 13 Apr 2016, 19:12

Re: EC Regulation 261/2004: news & court verdicts

Post by Ansett » 21 Aug 2018, 19:24

As regards strikes, the article and the Court's judgements are a bit whishy washy and my conclusion is that in many instances, decisions will have to made case by case.
Yesterday evening on Dutch television, a travel expert suggested that a strike by an arline's employees is not an exceptional circumstance since the airline can have a direct impact on the way the situation is created or evolves (see below); however, a strike from another airline or staff not on the airline's pay roll could be considered as an exceptional circumstance.

The article in the previous post also says :
"Trouwens, voegt het Hof er aan toe, heeft de luchtvaartmaatschappij eigenlijk wel een invloed op de wilde staking omdat deze opgehouden is nadat zij een akkoord met de werknemersvertegenwoordigers had gesloten."

Besides, the Court adds that an airline actually has an influence on an a wild-cat strike because it stopped after the airline concluded an agreement with the employees representatives.

Post Reply