|
These referels are not
legaly binding , the original documents can be requested
from the links
19. November 2009 joint
cases C-402/07 og C-432/07
Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH + Boch v Air
FRance SA.
(Air transport – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 – Article
2(l) and Articles 5, 6 and 7 – Concept of flight ‘delay’
and ‘cancellation’ – Right to compensation in the event
of delay – Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’)
1. Articles 2(l), 5 and 6 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, must
be interpreted as meaning that a flight which is
delayed, irrespective of the
duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be
regarded as cancelled where the flight is operated in
accordance with the air carrier’s original planning.
2. Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004
must be interpreted as meaning that
passengers whose flights are
delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the
application of the right to compensation, as
passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus
rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7
of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a
flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of
three hours, that is, where they reach their final
destination three hours or more after the arrival time
originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay
does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if
the air carrier can prove that the long delay was
caused
by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been
avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken,
namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the
air carrier.
3. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must
be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an
aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a
flight is not covered by the
concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the
meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems
from events which, by their nature or origin, are not
inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the
air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.
Link to complete
judgement : http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo1_6308/
choose language EN and case C-402/07
9. July 2009 case
C-204/08
Peter Rehder v Air Baltic Corporation
Regulation (EC)
No 44/2001 - Second indent of Article 5(1)(b) -
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004- Articles 5(1)(c) and
7(1)(a) - Montreal Convention - Article 33(1) - Air
transport - Passengerclaims for compensation against
airlines in the case of flight cancellation - Place
of performance of the service - Jurisdiction in the
case of air transport from one MemberState to
another Member State by an airline established in a
third Member State)
The second indent of
Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of
22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of air
transport of passengers from one Member State to another
Member State, carried out on the basis of a contract
with only one airline, which is the operating carrier,
the court having jurisdiction to deal with a claim for
compensation founded on that transport contract and on
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, is that,
at the applicant's choice, which
has territorial jurisdiction over the place of departure
or place of arrival of the aircraft, as those places are
agreed in that contract.
Link to complete
judgement :
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo1_6308/ choose
language EN and case C-204/08
22. December 2008 case
C-549/07
Friederike Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia – Linee
Aeree Italiane SpA
(Carriage by
air - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5 -
Compensation and assistance to passengers in the event
of cancellation of flights - Exemption from the
obligation to pay compensation - Cancellation due to
extraordinary circumstances which could not have been
avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken)
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,
must be interpreted as meaning that a
technical
problem in an aircraft which leads to the
cancellation of a flight is not covered by the
concept of 'extraordinary circumstances' within the
meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems
from events which, by their nature or origin, are
not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity
of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its
actual control. The Convention for the Unification
of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air,
concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, is not
decisive for the interpretation of the grounds of
exemption under Article 5(3) of Regulation No
261/2004.
The frequency of the
technical problems experienced by an air carrier is
not in itself a factor from which the presence or
absence of 'extraordinary circumstances' within the
meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004
can be concluded.
The
fact that an air carrier has complied with the
minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot
in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has
taken 'all reasonable measures' within the meaning
of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and,
therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation
to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c)
and 7(1) of that regulation.
40 + 41 are the
courts definition of resonable measures
as
per the regulation in regard to extraordinary
circumstances.
40 It
follows that, since not all extraordinary
circumstances confer exemption, the onus is on the
party seeking to rely on them to establish, in
addition, that they could not on any view have been
avoided by measures appropriate to the situation,
that is to say by measures which, at the time those
extraordinary circumstances arise, meet, inter alia,
conditions which are technically and economically
viable for the air carrier concerned.
41 That
party must establish that, even if it had deployed
all its resources in terms of staff or equipment
and the financial means at its disposal, it would
clearly not have been able – unless it had made
intolerable sacrifices in the light of the
capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time –
to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with
which it was confronted from leading to the
cancellation of the flight.
Link to complete
judgement :
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo1_6308/ choose
language EN and case C-549/07
10. July 2008 case
C-173/07
Diether Schenkel v Emirates Airlines – Direktion
für Deutschland
Transport – Carriage by air – Regulation No 261/2004 –
Common rules on compensation and assistance to
passengers in the event of denied boarding and of
cancellation or long delay of flights – Scope (European
Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art.
3(1)(a))
The concept of ‘flight’ within the meaning of Regulation
No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation
and assistance to passengers in the event of denied
boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights
must be interpreted as consisting essentially in an air
transport operation, being as it were a ‘unit’ of such
transport, performed by an air carrier which fixes its
itinerary. It follows that
a journey out and back cannot be regarded as a single
flight. Consequently, Article 3(1)(a) of that
regulation, which provides that the regulation is to
apply to passengers departing from an airport located in
the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty
applies, must be interpreted as not applying to the case
of an outward and return journey in which passengers who
have originally departed from an airport located in the
territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies
travel back to that airport on a flight from an airport
located in a non-member country. The fact that the
outward and return flights are the subject of a single
booking has no effect on the interpretation of that
provision.
Link to complete
judgement :
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo1_6308/ choose
language EN and case C-173/07
COURT RULINGS OUTSIDE OF THE ECJ
2009-03-23,Announced in Nyköping,Sweden Dok.Id 55778
Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) / Brännström v Ryanair
casel
no. T 1392-07,NYKÖPINGS TINGSRÄTT,DOM, (local court)
The
judgemnet is only in Swedish language so this is only a
citation of the essence in the judgemnet.
The
claimants were awarded compensation as per the EC
261/2044 Regulation for cancelled flights and not refunded
expenses for own transport home.
IN CASE OF
FLIGHT CANCELLATION THE OPERATING AIR CARRIER MUST OFFER
ALT-ERNATIVE TRANSPORT AT EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME, ALSO
ON FLIGHTS OF OTHER AIR CARRIERS OR EVEN FROM OTHER
NEARBY AIRPORTS. CLAIMANTS WERE NOT AWARDED REFUND OF
COSTS FOR OWN TRANSPORT FOR THE CONTINUED
JOURNEY.
THE OPERATING AIR CARRIERS NEGLECT TO ON ITS OWN ACCORD
INFORM THE PASSENGERS OF THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS WAS
CONSIDERED AN AGGREVATED CIRCUMSTANCE.
This case
was appealed by both parties to SVEA High Court .
Disclaimer : Information on this
page is not legaly binding and does not present the complete
text of the EC regulation no. 261/2004. It is only intended as
an aid for claiming compensation from the operating air
carrier. .
|
