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: 35195
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

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

Post by sn26567 » 21 Sep 2018, 12:14

SWISS and EU261

One of our readers draws our attention to the following facts. He requested a compensation through a broker (refund.me) after his Swiss flight (Zurich - Singapore) was cancelled because of technical issues with the plane. He was not aware that the Swiss don't have to strictly follow EU261/2004, as per the answer he received from refund.me:
Switzerland isn’t a member of the EU, but it has adopted most EU regulations on air transport, including Reg 261/2004, which entered into force on 1 September 2006 for Switzerland. However, the Swiss airlines, courts and also the Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation do not fully apply the Regulation. In particular, they do not apply the compensation rules for flights from Switzerland to third countries (non-EU) and vice versa. Further, Switzerland does not feel bound by the European Court of Justice’s case-law, at least as far it derives from after 1 September 2006. Insofar the Swiss airlines also don’t compensate for long delays, as this compensation was only developed by later case-law.

Unfortunately, this will require us to close your claim.

As per our “no win, no fee” policy you will not be charged for any activities carried out by refund.me.
Easy for SWISS: when it does not please them, they refuse to pay "We are not in the EU". Passengers with SWISS, beware!

Brexit might bring similar cases...
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
Vic Diesel
Posts: 194
Joined: 06 Feb 2018, 10:10

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

Post by Vic Diesel » 21 Sep 2018, 12:23

On the positive note:

On 23. August this year, my LH flight JNB-FRA was severely delayed, due to the VERY late arrival of the aircraft: the FRA-JNB flight was delayed by 11 hrs, however as the aircraft is usually parked in JNB for a couple of hours, my flight was "just" around 5,5 hrs late. Of course I missed the connecting flight FRA-VIE. So far so bad. BUT:

- Upon landing in FRA and activating my mobile phone while taxiing to the parking position, I already got the message from OS (operator of my onward flight) that I was re-booked to the next available flight and could check-in online as well. By the time I left the B748, I already knew I would spend around 2 hrs in FRA and had my seat for the onward flight.

- Some days later I wrote LH, requesting a compensation according to Reg. (EC) 261/2004, describing precisely the details of my flight, including Etix no., flight numbers and the difference between STA/STD and the actual times. Two days ago (so well within the 30 days I gave them to answer my request), I got mail from LH with apologies for the bad experience I had to make AND declared that I should get the EUR 600,00 to my account in the upcoming days.

Apparently, if your case is clear and you are precise enough to describe it, that helps them to look up the flight and its details - and that might speed up compensation requests.
Best regards,
Viktor

(Budapest-born, Vienna-raised, working in Brussels)

Passenger
Posts: 6198
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 21 Sep 2018, 13:02

sn26567 wrote:
21 Sep 2018, 12:14
SWISS and EU261

One of our readers draws our attention to the following facts. He requested a compensation through a broker (refund.me) after his Swiss flight (Zurich - Singapore) was cancelled because of technical issues with the plane. He was not aware that the Swiss don't have to strictly follow EU261/2004, as per the answer he received from refund.me:
Switzerland isn’t a member of the EU, but it has adopted most EU regulations on air transport, including Reg 261/2004, which entered into force on 1 September 2006 for Switzerland. However, the Swiss airlines, courts and also the Swiss Federal Office of Civil Aviation do not fully apply the Regulation. In particular, they do not apply the compensation rules for flights from Switzerland to third countries (non-EU) and vice versa. Further, Switzerland does not feel bound by the European Court of Justice’s case-law, at least as far it derives from after 1 September 2006. Insofar the Swiss airlines also don’t compensate for long delays, as this compensation was only developed by later case-law.

Unfortunately, this will require us to close your claim.

As per our “no win, no fee” policy you will not be charged for any activities carried out by refund.me.
Easy for SWISS: when it does not please them, they refuse to pay "We are not in the EU". Passengers with SWISS, beware!
This is a very very strange statement from refund.me because it totally contradicts with what the Swiss Civil Aviation Authority writes:

"...For anyone departing from a Swiss airport or returning from a third country (not EU, Norway or Iceland) with a Swiss or EU airline, the same passenger rights apply as those in the EU. The National Enforcement Body for Passenger Rights is responsible for ensuring that the rights of passengers are duly complied with. The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) monitors compliance with European Regulation (EC) 261/2004. This service is provided free of charge for passengers..."
https://www.bazl.admin.ch/bazl/en/home/ ... ights.html

If the above statement from Refund.me is true (see post André, sn26567), then the European Commission would act immediately and forbit (by court) that a Swiss authority or a Swiss airline uses the phrase "EU Rule 261/2004 applies in Switzerland".

It's true indeed that the EU Court of Justice has no jurisdiction for Switzerland and/or for Swiss airlines. But any Swiss civil court will grant indemnities as per EU-261/2004, simply because the Swiss authority Federal Office of Civil Aviation states that EU-261/2004 applies to Swiss airlines.

PttU
Posts: 287
Joined: 24 Nov 2015, 15:07

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

Post by PttU » 21 Sep 2018, 22:24

I'd rather guess refund.me isn't taking the chance of loosing the case against SWISS and not getting any money from it...

Passenger
Posts: 6198
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 21 Dec 2018, 19:22

EU Court of Justice: court case Claim It and passenger André Moens versus Ryanair: Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev (19/12/2018):

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi (Magistrate’s Court for the Third Canton of Charleroi, Belgium). Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Right to compensation – Exemption — Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Closure of a runway due to a spillage of fuel.

EN:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 2018CC0159

NL:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 43&from=EN

FR:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 43&from=EN

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35195
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

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

Post by sn26567 » 21 Dec 2018, 23:41

Mr Moens went too far and will not get his 250 euros. What could Ryanair have done if the airport closes the runway for more than 2 hours because of a fuel spillage?
André
ex Sabena #26567

Passenger
Posts: 6198
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 04 Apr 2019, 18:45

EU Court: "...An air carrier is only required to compensate passengers for a delay of three hours or more where an aircraft tyre is damaged by a screw lying on the runway if it fails to prove that it deployed all means at its disposal for limiting the delay of the flight..."

Source - more info:
EN:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_1874301/nl/
FR:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_1874300/nl/
NL:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_1874308/nl/

Passenger
Posts: 6198
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 19 Apr 2019, 17:04

During a hearing with Dutch autority "ILT / Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport", the Dutch consumer organization Consumentenbond has asked that Dutch supervising authority for EU-Rule 261/2004 to rule that the massive 2018 strikes were no extraordinary circumstances.

The Consumentenbond refers to a verdict from the European Court of Justice (17/04/2018) and to judgements from lower Dutch courts, all stating that Ryanair had the possibility to prevent the strike, and/or aggreviated the strike by its harsh policy towards employees.

The Consumentenbond has asked the ILT to penalize Ryanair for its rejection of obvious claims (penalty that will result in a legal basis for the indemnity as per 261/2004).

https://www.consumentenbond.nl/nieuws/2 ... toegelicht

(the above is a copy/paste from a post in the topic "Ryanair in 2019"

Passenger
Posts: 6198
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 12 Jun 2019, 09:35

Claims company Claim It ("known from tv") has been declared bankrupt on 28/05/2019
NL:
https://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/ ... =508808550
FR:
https://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/ ... =508808550

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35195
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

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

Post by sn26567 » 12 Jun 2019, 10:05

Claim It (founded in Belgium by Dutch national Ralph Pais who often contacted Aviation24.be) is bankrupt: it lost too many cases because courts consider too often exceptional circumstances justifying the non-payment of EU261 compensations.
André
ex Sabena #26567

Passenger
Posts: 6198
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 21 Jun 2019, 11:47

copy/paste from a post in the topic "Ryanair in 2019":

Ryanair has lost a court case at the trade court Charleroi: the Tribunal d'Entreprises / Ondernemingsrechtbank has accepted 3 files from Happy Flights and AirHelp. Ryanair had hoped that the court would reject the claims because passengers "have to do" their request online.

Next week Friday, the same court will deal with a few dozen of similar requests.


https://www.sudinfo.be/id126160/article ... mmager-des

Passenger
Posts: 6198
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 21 Jun 2019, 12:20

Passenger wrote:
21 Jun 2019, 11:47
copy/paste from a post in the topic "Ryanair in 2019":

Ryanair has lost a court case at the trade court Charleroi: the Tribunal d'Entreprises / Ondernemingsrechtbank has accepted 3 files from Happy Flights and AirHelp. Ryanair had hoped that the court would reject the claims because passengers "have to do" their request online.

Next week Friday, the same court will deal with a few dozen of similar requests.


https://www.sudinfo.be/id126160/article ... mmager-des
See relevant update by the webmaster down below:
luchtzak wrote:
21 Jun 2019, 12:07
Passenger wrote:
21 Jun 2019, 11:46
Ryanair has lost a court case at the trade court Charleroi: the Tribunal d'Entreprises / Ondernemingsrechtbank has accepted 3 files from Happy Flights and AirHelp. Ryanair had hoped that the court would reject the claims because passengers "have to do" their request online.

Next week Friday, the same court will deal with a few dozen of similar requests.

[EN] https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/ryan ... tumn-2017/
[FR] https://www.sudinfo.be/id126160/article ... mmager-des
Happy Flights contacted Aviation24.be stating that the court is still busy and that the possible ruling isn't official yet. We have hidden the article on our main page and will publish again once we have more news.

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35195
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

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

Post by sn26567 » 21 Jun 2019, 12:44

Passenger wrote:
21 Jun 2019, 11:47
copy/paste from a post in the topic "Ryanair in 2019":

Ryanair has lost a court case at the trade court Charleroi: the Tribunal d'Entreprises / Ondernemingsrechtbank has accepted 3 files from Happy Flights and AirHelp. Ryanair had hoped that the court would reject the claims because passengers "have to do" their request online.

Next week Friday, the same court will deal with a few dozen of similar requests.


https://www.sudinfo.be/id126160/article ... mmager-des
The information from Belga is premature. The court session is still ongoing.
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35195
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

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

Post by sn26567 » 21 Jun 2019, 14:52

sn26567 wrote:
21 Jun 2019, 12:44
Passenger wrote:
21 Jun 2019, 11:47
copy/paste from a post in the topic "Ryanair in 2019":

Ryanair has lost a court case at the trade court Charleroi: the Tribunal d'Entreprises / Ondernemingsrechtbank has accepted 3 files from Happy Flights and AirHelp. Ryanair had hoped that the court would reject the claims because passengers "have to do" their request online.

Next week Friday, the same court will deal with a few dozen of similar requests.


https://www.sudinfo.be/id126160/article ... mmager-des
The information from Belga is premature. The court session is still ongoing.
The information is confirmed, however with many more than 3 cases. The English translation of the Dutch statement of Happy Flights has been added to our article:

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/ryan ... tumn-2017/
André
ex Sabena #26567

Passenger
Posts: 6198
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 11 Jul 2019, 20:31

With codesharing flights, a delay on the second flight that is not operated by a EU carrier, also qualifies for the indemnity for delayed/cancelled flights.

Decision EU Court of Justice, 11th July 2019:

EN:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_2219059/nl/
NL:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_2219066/nl/
FR:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_2219058/nl/

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35195
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

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

Post by sn26567 » 19 Jul 2019, 17:22

Passenger wrote:
11 Jul 2019, 20:31
With codesharing flights, a delay on the second flight that is not operated by a EU carrier, also qualifies for the indemnity for delayed/cancelled flights.
And, most important, the compensation has to be paid by the first carrier, even if its flight was on time. But, of course, the first carrier can ask to be reimbursed by the second carrier whose flight was late.

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/conn ... f-justice/
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 35195
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

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

Post by sn26567 » 15 Aug 2019, 14:40

Ryanair drags passengers before the Dutch Supreme Court on EU261/2004 compensations

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/ryan ... ensations/
André
ex Sabena #26567

Post Reply