Friday 16 September 2011

Overview of pending cases before the European Court in Luxembourg


Your Air Passenger Rights at hand
when you need them
Air Passenger Rights Book
Air Passenger Rights App

Passagiersgids

Now the evenings are getting longer, some may want to know which Air Passenger Rights cases are currently pending before the European Court of Justice. So let me give you a taste and smell of what is simmering in the cuisine luxembourgeoise. See my website for all pending and decided European cases.

Currently there are 12 cases pending. In one of them, the Rodriguez case, there is an Opinion of the Advocate General. I wrote about this case in previous posts:

Sturgeon-Montreal compatibility
Of the other 11 pending cases no less than 4 are concerned with the compatibility of Sturgeon with the Montreal Convention: Van de Ven, Büsch and Siever, TUI, and Nelson. I wrote about this compatibility in previous posts:

Interpretation of Sturgeon
Of the 7 pending not concerned with Montreal three are about the interpretation of Sturgeon. It is likely these cases will be answered after the European Court has clarified the Sturgeon-Montreal-compatibility issue:
Folkerts: are the time limits of Article 6 (waiting time for care) additionally applicable to the calculation of the three hours Sturgeon delay?
Condor: is Sturgeon applicable if a flight departs on time, then returns to the departure airport, takes off again and arrives with a delay of more than three hours?
Esteves Coelho dos Santos: is Sturgeon applicable if a flight departs on time, was delayed at the stop-over airport and arrived at the destination with a delay of almost four hours?

Denied boarding
Two pending cases are about denied boarding:
Rodriguez Cachafero: does ‘denied boarding’ include the situation where an airline refuses passengers to allow boarding because the first flight on the ticket was subject to a delay and the airline allowed their seats to be taken by other passengers?
Finnair: is denied boarding also reasonable if it happens in order to reschedule of flights as a result of the extraordinary circumstances?

Care
One pending case is about limits to the duty to provide care:
McDonagh: Do circumstances such as the closures of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland justify a limitation on the airline’s duty to provide care?

Time limit
Finally, one pending case is about the applicable time limit for bringing a claim:
Cuadrench: Is the time limit for bringing a claim under Regulation 261/2004 the two year limit of Article 35 of the Montreal Convention or is it subject to national law?

All in all, it looks like there is something for everyone in the cuisine luxembourgeoise with the 
Steak Montreal avec sauce sturgeonaise as the main course. The only thing certain about this dish is that it will not be to everybody’s taste. 

 <<<>>>

Make sure you have your Air Passenger Rights at hand when you need them
Download the Air Passenger Rights App


Or order the Air Passenger Rights Book


1 comment:

  1. Why dont the airlines understand the EC regulation is a consumer law and the only demand is that the regulation does not over rule the Montreal or other conventions. The EC regulation 261/2004 compensates for non economic damages while the Montreal Convention compensates for economic and material damages

    ReplyDelete