On 7 September 2011, the French National Assembly has adopted a finance bill which includes a new 2% tax on hotel stays where rates exceed EUR 200 per night. The bill is subject to ratification by the French Senate. Once ratified the new tax shall be due as from 1 November 2011.
Source: IFTTA (by: Michael Wukoschitz)
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 plaintiffs (a German couple) sued a Vienna 4 star hotel company for compensation of more than EUR 160.000 of valuables stolen from the safe in their hotel room. When they had asked at the reception where to keep their valuables, the receptionist had told them to use the safe in their room. This safe had to be locked and unlocked by a code of four numbers chosen by the plaintiffs. However, the safe could also be opened by using a ‚mastercode’. This mastercode for emergency cases had not been changed by the hotel management for almost two years and was known by no less than 16 of the current employees and an unclear number of former employees. Because of earlier thefts from hotel rooms, police had already urged the hotel manager to increase safety standards.
Dismissing the hotel’s appeal, the Austrian Supreme Court upheld the judgements of the lower courts, holding the hotel company liable for the theft: As guests of a 4 star hotel who had explicitly asked for a way to safely store their valuables, they could have expected that an emergency code would not be known to a vast number of current and former employees. As regards potential contributory negligence of the plaintiffs who – as the hotel stated – had not mentioned the extraordinary value of the items to be stored, the Supreme Court held that the hotel had not explained which safety measures would have been taken if the actual value had been known. Thus there was no causal conncetion between the potential failure and the damage.
Supreme Court decision 1 Ob 119/11 of July 21, 2011 available in German here>>.
Source: IFTTA (by: Michael Wukoschitz)
On 8 July 2011, the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Cível de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged a reference for prelimiary ruling of the ECJ questioning the „Sturgeon” judgement of the Court as follows:
Case: C-365/11, João Nuno Esteves Coelho dos Santos v. TAP Portugal
Source: IFTTA (by Michael Wukoschitz)
Opublikowano Uncategorized
Otagowane IFTTA, prawa pasażerów, PRAWO TURYSTYCZNE, rozporządzenie 261/2004, travel law
On 28 June 2011, Juzgado de lo Mercantil de A Coruña (Spain) lodged a reference for preliminary ruling of the ECJ with regard to the following question:
Source: IFTTA (by: Michael Wukoschitz)
Opublikowano Uncategorized
Otagowane IFTTA, prawa pasażerów, PRAWO TURYSTYCZNE, rozporządzenie 261/2004, travel law
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
The Dutch Rechtbank Breda on June 27, 2011 lodged a reference for preliminary ruling of the ECJ with regard to the following questions:
The reference proves that some national courts of the member states still have their doubts whether a compensation in case of delay as postulated by the ECJ in the Sturgeon-judgement is in line with the Montreal Convention.
Case C-315/11, Van de Ven & Van de Ven-Janssen v. KLM
Source: IFTTA, by Michael Wukoschitz
Opublikowano Uncategorized
Otagowane prawa pasażerów, PRAWO TURYSTYCZNE, rozporządzenie 261/2004, travel law, UE
Więcej informacji o konferencji: strona IFTTA
Opublikowano Uncategorized
Otagowane IFTTA, konferencje i spotkania, PRAWO TURYSTYCZNE, travel law
The Austrian „Schienen-Control Kommission Wien” has filed a reference for preliminary ruling of the ECJ with regard to the following questions:
* Is Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Annex II, Part II, to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations to be interpreted as meaning that information on main connecting services must include, in addition to scheduled departure times, notification of delays to or cancellations of those connecting services?
* If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II to, Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure [and safety certification] to be interpreted, in the light of Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Annex II, Part II, to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007, as meaning that the infrastructure manager is under an obligation to make real-time data on other railway undertakings’ trains available to railway undertakings in a non-discriminatory manner, in so far as those trains constitute main connecting services within the meaning of Annex II, Part II, to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007?
Case C-136/11 Westbahn Management GmbH v. ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG.
Source: IFTTA (by Michael Wukoschitz)
Opublikowano Uncategorized
Otagowane IFTTA, prawa pasażerów, PRAWO TURYSTYCZNE, travel law
German Oberlandesgericht Jena recently held that it was an illegal trade practice to automatically include a cancellation insurance to the ticket price during the online booking process. Such practice would deceive the average consumer even if he had the option to avoid the inclusion of the insurance by unclicking the related tickbox. The deceptive practice would also violate EU Regulation 1008/2008 on on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community.
OLG Jena, judment 2 U 783/10 of April 6, 2011.
Source: IFTTA
Opublikowano Uncategorized
Otagowane IFTTA, prawa pasażerów, PRAWO TURYSTYCZNE, travel law, ubezpieczenia
PRAWO TURYSTYCZNE 