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
Yuqu12
Posts: 460
Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 09:41

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

Post by Yuqu12 » 12 Feb 2020, 15:48

Quite strange to read such a decision as this seems contrary to the ruling of the CJEU in the Krüsemann/TUIFly-case, where the CJEU stated:
"Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (...) read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the spontaneous absence of a significant part of the flight crew staff (‘wildcat strikes’), such as that at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, which stems from the surprise announcement by an operating air carrier of a restructuring of the undertaking, following a call echoed not by the staff representatives of the company but spontaneously by the workers themselves who placed themselves on sick leave, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision."

If a spontaneous strike from the cabin crew is not an extraordinary circumstance according to the CJEU, I simply cannot see how a union-led strike would be an extraordinary circumstance. Certainly when such a union-led strike is announced. Then the airline can already take some measures before the strike itself in order to remedy it as much as possible.

Passenger
Posts: 6573
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 13 Feb 2020, 16:20

Yuqu12 wrote:
12 Feb 2020, 15:48
Quite strange to read such a decision as this seems contrary to the ruling of the CJEU in the Krüsemann/TUIFly-case, where the CJEU stated:
"Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (...) read in the light of recital 14 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the spontaneous absence of a significant part of the flight crew staff (‘wildcat strikes’), such as that at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, which stems from the surprise announcement by an operating air carrier of a restructuring of the undertaking, following a call echoed not by the staff representatives of the company but spontaneously by the workers themselves who placed themselves on sick leave, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision."

If a spontaneous strike from the cabin crew is not an extraordinary circumstance according to the CJEU, I simply cannot see how a union-led strike would be an extraordinary circumstance. Certainly when such a union-led strike is announced. Then the airline can already take some measures before the strike itself in order to remedy it as much as possible.
Indeed. There is jurisprudence in Belgian travel legislation that touroperators are responsible in case of a strike that has been announced clearly and well in advance - and that touroperators are not responsible in case of a wildcat strike. Apparent reason: a wildcat strike happens when workers "are forced" to go on strike.

On 15/06/2016, the EU has published this document: "...Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and on Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2016/C 214/04)..."
Link:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 15%2801%29
Article 5 there handles "extraordinary circumstances". Unfortunately, there is no clarification about strikes. Maybe that's something that will be in the amendment to 261/2004, that's now being discussed at the EU.

User avatar
Yuqu12
Posts: 460
Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 09:41

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

Post by Yuqu12 » 13 Feb 2020, 16:53

I checked the amendment of 2013 concerning Reg. 261/2004. In the Annex to it, I found the following:
Annex: non-exhaustive list of circumstances considered as extraordinary
circumstances for the purposes of this Regulation
1. The following circumstances shall be considered as extraordinary:
...
vii. labour disputes at the operating air carrier or at essential service providers such
as airports and Air Navigation Service Providers


So in the future, this may become an extraordinary circumstance, which is a change compared to the ruling of the CJEU.

Passenger
Posts: 6573
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 27 Feb 2020, 17:53

EU Court of Justice 13/02/2020, published 20/02/2020: the last flight of a booking Hamburg-London (BA) - London-Madrid (IB) - Madrid-San Sebastian (IB) was cancelled. The court states that passengers then are allowed to sue Iberia at a German court, even without they had booked at/with Iberia.

EU Court: "...Two passengers booked a journey with connecting flights under a confirmed single booking. The journey was divided into three legs: the first leg of the journey, from Hamburg (Germany) to London (UK), was operated by the British airline British Airways; the other two legs of the journey, from London to Madrid (Spain) and from Madrid to San Sebastian (Spain), were operated by the Spanish airline Iberia. The third leg of the journey was cancelled without the passengers being informed in due time..."

"...Where journeys with a confirmed single booking comprise of several connecting flights operated by separate air carriers, compensation for the cancellation of the final leg of the journey may be sought before the courts of the place of departure of the first leg..."

"...In its order of 13 February 2020, delivered today, the Court holds that the Regulation on jurisdiction must be interpreted as meaning that, where journeys with a confirmed single booking comprise several connecting flights operated by two separate air carriers, the compensation claims for the cancellation of the final leg of the journey may be brought before the courts of the place of departure of the first leg of the journey even if they are brought against the air carrier in charge of the final leg..."

Press release:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_2889703/nl/

Full verdict: select your language in the "Curia" list (next to "EUR-lex"):
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-606/19

Passenger
Posts: 6573
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 29 Feb 2020, 10:02

Yesterday: DB Fernverkehr ICE Inter-City-Express from Frankfurt to Brussels. Expected schedule 12h43-15h35. At 14h45, when the train had just crossed the border: technical failure. Grounded in the middle of nowhere for four hours, then pulled by a locomotive to Liège Guillemins railway station, where they arrived at 21h. End of journey, no assistance: NMBS/SNCB said there were enough trains from Liège to Brussels.

Compensation? Refund? Free meals? Assistance? Nope. Not for railway passengers. Just free drinks.
https://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/be ... ~af95a780/

User avatar
sn26567
Posts: 36309
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium
Contact:

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

Post by sn26567 » 29 Feb 2020, 10:54

Passenger wrote:
29 Feb 2020, 10:02
Yesterday: DB Fernverkehr ICE Inter-City-Express from Frankfurt to Brussels. Expected schedule 12h43-15h35. At 14h45, when the train had just crossed the border: technical failure. Grounded in the middle of nowhere for four hours, then pulled by a locomotive to Liège Guillemins railway station, where they arrived at 21h. End of journey, no assistance: NMBS/SNCB said there were enough trains from Liège to Brussels.

Compensation? Refund? Free meals? Assistance? Nope. Not for railway passengers. Just free drinks.
https://www.hln.be/nieuws/binnenland/be ... ~af95a780/
Strange. I got compensation twice from SNCF in France when their TGV was delayed by more than one hour.
André
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
Yuqu12
Posts: 460
Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 09:41

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

Post by Yuqu12 » 09 Mar 2020, 16:48

If I'm not mistaken, there is also a regulation or directive on passenger rights for passengers taking the train. Maybe it says something on the rights you have?

Passenger
Posts: 6573
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 09 Mar 2020, 17:11

Yuqu12 wrote:
09 Mar 2020, 16:48
If I'm not mistaken, there is also a regulation or directive on passenger rights for passengers taking the train. Maybe it says something on the rights you have?
Yes, there is a compulsary reduction of the ticket price, but it's limited to 50% of the ticket price for delays +120 minutes. For a similar delay, the rail compensation is far less then the 250-600 from the aviation Rule.

TLspotting
Posts: 2128
Joined: 19 Mar 2017, 10:22
Location: Uccle/Ukkel,BE
Contact:

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

Post by TLspotting » 10 Mar 2020, 17:35

Stupid question but do airlines have to give a compensation even if there are "exceptional circumstances" with Coronavirus ?
I'm Thibault Lapers, spotter in Belgium for now 3 years, but not yet across the world and a huuuuuge aviation geek ! Join me on Facebook & Twitter @TLspotting

User avatar
Yuqu12
Posts: 460
Joined: 04 Mar 2016, 09:41

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

Post by Yuqu12 » 16 Mar 2020, 15:41

What exactly do you mean with this question? Do you mean that coronavirus could be seen as extraordinary circumstance so that compensation does not have to be paid? Or do you mean that compensation does not have to be paid in extraordinary circumstances other than coronavirus? In my opinion, coronavirus itself isn't really an extraordinary circumstance, but the subsequent consequences like travel bans and closure of borders by national governments (leading to cancelled flights) are definitely extraordinary circumstances.

Passenger
Posts: 6573
Joined: 06 Dec 2010, 20:54

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

Post by Passenger » 18 Mar 2020, 19:24

On 18th March 2020, the European Commission pas published a document "...Interpretative Guidelines on EU passenger rights regulations in the context of the developing situation with Covid-19..."

See:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=67995&p=393673#p393673

Post Reply