--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know your Air Passenger Rights when you need them
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2012, several airlines lodged appeals before the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) against decisions of lower courts awarding Sturgeon compensation for delayed flights. On Friday 11 May, the Advocate General handed down his Opinion in which he advises the Supreme Court to dismiss all airlines’ claims. In a damning conclusion for the airlines the Advocate General holds that the European Court has already answered all their questions. The decision of the Supreme Court will probably follow in September.Interestingly, at the Supreme Court hearing in March, one person was sitting at one side of the room (EUclaim’s CEO Hendrik Noorderhaven) and fourty something black and grey airline representatives at the other. Apparently, the airlines thought their massive presence would impress the Supreme Court. In fact, however, this is exactly the kind of behaviour that judges do not like. It looks like airlines have problems to understand the distinction between a lobby and a court of law.
The airlines have asked the Supreme Court to quash the lower courts’ decisions. Why? Because the lower courts applied Sturgeon and failed to ask the European Court preliminary questions.
In his Opinion, the Advocate General deals with the airlines’ arguments in the same vein as I did in various publications and various previous blog posts. The Opinion refers a number of times to my publications but the ground for the Advocate General’s opinion is, of course, the European Court’s case law itself. This case law provides for a consistent line from IATA to Sturgeon and makes clear that passengers of delayed flights are entitled to compensation.
According to the Advocate General, Sturgeon reflects European Union law and is to be applied in all EU Member States. He considers this to be an acte éclairé (not to be confused with an éclair, an oblong pastry), which means that the European Court has already answered the questions raised by the airlines. The Advocate General concludes that the lower courts were right to apply Sturgeon and that there is no need for the Supreme Court to ask the European Court preliminary questions.
The way the Opinion is drafted suggests that the Advocate General has no doubt whatsoever about what the airlines wrongly call the ‘validity’ of Sturgeon. This adds to the expectation that the Supreme Court will follow the Advocate General’s advice. The decision of the Dutch Supreme Court is scheduled for late September.
According to the Advocate General, Sturgeon reflects European Union law and is to be applied in all EU Member States. He considers this to be an acte éclairé (not to be confused with an éclair, an oblong pastry), which means that the European Court has already answered the questions raised by the airlines. The Advocate General concludes that the lower courts were right to apply Sturgeon and that there is no need for the Supreme Court to ask the European Court preliminary questions.The way the Opinion is drafted suggests that the Advocate General has no doubt whatsoever about what the airlines wrongly call the ‘validity’ of Sturgeon. This adds to the expectation that the Supreme Court will follow the Advocate General’s advice. The decision of the Dutch Supreme Court is scheduled for late September.
On Tuesday 15 May 2012, the Opinion of Advocate General at the European Court in the TUI case will be published. Anyone expecting a surprise?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know your Air Passenger Rights when you need them
Air Passenger Rights Book --- Air Passenger Rights App --- Passagiersgids
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment