Tag Archives: prawa pasażerów

Case C‑83/10, 13 October 2011

1. ‘Cancellation’, as defined in Article 2(1) 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, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it does not refer only to the situation in which the aeroplane in question fails to take off at all, but also covers the case in which that aeroplane took off but, for whatever reason, was subsequently forced to return to the airport of departure where the passengers of the said aeroplane were transferred to other flights.

2. The meaning of ‘further compensation’, used in Article 12 of Regulation No 261/2004, must be interpreted to the effect that it allows the national court to award compensation, under the conditions provided for by the Convention for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air or national law, for damage, including non-material damage, arising from breach of a contract of carriage by air. On the other hand, that meaning of ‘further compensation’ may not be the legal basis for the national court to order an air carrier to reimburse to passengers whose flight has been delayed or cancelled the expenses the latter have had to incur because of the failure of that carrier to fulfil its obligations to assist and provide care under Article 8 and Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004.

Preliminary ruling before ECJ lodged by Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (national reference: QP/07238-A9, decision as of June 15, 2011):

C-410/11 (Pedro Espada Sánchez ea/Iberia)

Questions referred
(1)    Must the limit of 1 000 Special Drawing Rights per passenger, laid down in Article 22 of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concerning the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss or damage of baggage, considered in conjunction with Article 3(3) of that convention, be interpreted as a maximum limit for each individual passenger where a number of passengers travelling check in their shared baggage together, regardless of whether there are fewer pieces of checked baggage than there are actual travellers?
(2)    Or, on the contrary, must the limit to damages laid down in Article 22 of the Montreal Convention be interpreted as meaning that, for each piece of checked baggage, only one passenger may be entitled to claim compensation and that, accordingly, the maximum limit applied must be that fixed for a single passenger even if it is proved that the lost baggage identified by a single tag belongs to more than one passenger

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=600371%3Acs&lang=de&list=600371%3…

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en&alljur=alljur&jurc…

Source: IFTTA (by Stephan Keiler)

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today fined JetBlue Airways $50,000 for violating federal aviation laws and the Department’s rules prohibiting deceptive price advertising in air travel.

“When passengers shop for an airline ticket, they have a right to know the full price they will have to pay,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We expect airlines to treat their passengers fairly and will take enforcement action when our rules are violated.”

The Department’s Aviation Enforcement Office found that for a period of time in early 2011, JetBlue displayed fare advertisements on several websites that did not provide any information on additional taxes and fees. Consumers clicking on the advertisements were taken to a page where a list of routes and prices were displayed, along with a statement that taxes and fees would be added to the fare. However, the statement was not a link, and consumers had to scroll to the bottom of the page or click a link next to each of the listed fares to see, listed in fine print, the amount of the additional taxes and fees they would have to pay.

JetBlue’s website violated DOT rules requiring any advertising that includes a price for air transportation to state the full price to be paid by the consumer, including all carrier-imposed surcharges. The only exception currently allowed is government-imposed taxes and fees that are assessed on a per-passenger basis, such as passenger facility charges, which may be stated separately from the advertised fare but must be clearly disclosed in the advertisement so that passengers can easily determine the full price they must pay. Internet fare listings may disclose these separate taxes and fees through a prominent link next to the fare stating that government taxes and fees are extra, and the link must take the viewer directly to information where the type and amount of taxes and fees are displayed.

Under DOT’s recently adopted consumer rule that enhances protections for air travelers, carriers will be required, among other things, to include all government taxes and fees in every advertised fare beginning Jan. 24, 2012.

The consent order it available on the Internet at www.regulations.gov, docket DOT-OST-2011-0003.

Source: DOT