DIY Claim  or           Claim Assistance     No Cure No Pay  

        European Passenger Rights Compensation Claims

   
    WWW.EUFLYERSRIGHTS.COM    


  The EC Regulation  Member States  World Time Zones Flight Distance   Euro to Dollar     Flight Stats
About Us
News


Compensation Quick Reference

Our Online Friends

Flight Mole UK forum Flyers Rights. USA  

 

 
              Compensations of Euro 250  -  400  -  600  awarded for delayed or cancelled flights            

 n  Home

 n  Delayed

  
n  Cancelled

  
n  Denied Boarding

  
n  Downgraded

 n  Prior Rebooking or Cancellation

 n  Step by Step DIY Claim

 n  Claim Assistance No Cure No Pay

ECJ COURT JUDGEMENTS ON REGULATION NO. 261/2004

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. .


 


 

 Tel. +45 43 69 11 71 n Fax +45 69 96 03 48 n E-mail: euflyersrights.com

     CVR 326 180 73