We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
15 December 2010
Many air operators in Europe would agree that the EU Denied Boarding Regulation (261/2004) is in need of a thorough review. This is all the more urgent following Sturgeon(1) and in light of the inadequacy of EU law to deal with extraordinary circumstances, such as those caused by the volcanic ash cloud in April 2010.
The Sturgeon judgment has been widely criticised by the airline industry, particularly for:
The cost implications for airlines are serious. If a passenger buys and uses a €49 ticket for a flight from Rome to Milan, but arrives three hours late, he or she is entitled to €250 under Article 7 - five times the price paid for a service that he or she has received. The volcanic ash cloud brought further problems. If the same passenger was unable to make the journey on the ticket due to the closure of Italian airspace, and chose not make the journey by other available and practicable methods (eg, by train or by car), he or she was entitled to hotel accommodation at the expense of the airline until the latter was able to offer a new flight on the same route.(2)
The problems of the denied boarding regime are exacerbated in Italy, which faces a number of specific issues not necessarily shared by other EU countries. Around 95% of passenger claims are not dealt with by the main civil courts, but fall within the competence of justices of the peace as small claims (ie, claims under €5,000). Justices of the peace rarely have adequate experience in aviation matters: they often apply the equity principle and tend to favour the passenger. Moreover, air carriers frequently struggle to satisfy the burden of proof, especially when seeking to provide proof of force majeure and technical faults on aircraft. Documents provided by the air carrier, such as technical logs, may be considered difficult for a non-specialist to understand; as a result, insufficient value is attached to them, which often makes witnesses an expensive necessity. This further raises the cost of defending a claim before the court of a passenger's residence or domicile, which is likely to high in comparison with the value of the claim itself. No less significantly, there is a tendency to award moral damages in addition to indemnification under Article 7 of the regulation. For all these reasons, air carriers generally prefer to settle claims, rather than contesting them.
In Italy, air carriers are represented by Assaereo, the national air carriers association. Among Assaereo's roles in representing Italian air carries, it cooperates with ENAC, the Italian Civil Aviation Authority, on the application of Italian, European and international regulations and in monitoring developments in aviation case law.
In July 2010 Assaereo organized a conference where representatives of airlines, aviation authorities and consumer groups discussed the problems surrounding passenger claims. Among the ideas to emerge from this and other industry discussions are:
In general, a number of amendments or improvements would be widely welcomed by airlines, such as:
For further information on this topic please contact Laura Pierallini or Gianluigi Ascenzi at Studio Legale Pierallini e Associati by telephone (+39 06 88 41 713), fax (+39 06 88 40 249) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com).
(2) See Articles 5 and 9. Although the regulation excludes pecuniary compensation for exceptional circumstances and force majeure events for which the service provider bears no liability, airlines are obliged to cover the cost of food and accommodation for the period between the flight that the customer booked (and which was cancelled) and the flight that he or she ultimately takes.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.