Latest developments in European Client Regulation: Influence of pre-emptive denied boarding on passenger rights – Cyber Tech

Final Thursday, on October 26, the CJEU issued a brand new judgment on rights of passengers who’ve been denied boarding, decoding Regulation No 261/2004. Within the LATAM Airways Group case (C-238/22), the passenger booked return flights with Latam between Frankfurt am Most important and Madrid for 22-12-2017 and 7-1-2018. When the passenger couldn’t verify in on-line on Dec 21, they contacted Latam and heard that the airline modified their flight date unilaterally to Dec 20. They only didn’t inform the passenger about this (which is a little bit of an issue, you should agree). Oh, and for the reason that passenger didn’t take the re-booked flight (they didn’t learn about they had been lacking), additionally they misplaced the appropriate to take the return flight on Jan 7. The airline’s coverage was that the outward flight needed to be taken for the return flight reservation to stay legitimate. Latam nonetheless refunded the ticket the passenger didn’t use. They refused, nonetheless, to both pay compensation pursuant to Regulation 261/2004 or to compensate the passenger for the brand new reservation they made with a brand new provider. 

Pre-emptive denied boarding

The CJEU clarifies that when the airline denies boarding to passengers prematurely, towards their will – right here by informing the passenger that they misplaced the appropriate to the return flight – the passenger will not be anticipated to nonetheless current themselves for boarding to keep up their passenger rights (para 38). This is a vital clarification because the literal wording of Article 2(j) of the Regulation 261/2004 qualifies ‘denied boarding’ as a refusal to hold passengers on a flight, though they’ve introduced themselves for boarding (para 23). This in turns means, pursuant to Article 3(2), passengers being current for check-in (para 24). The CJEU confirms that the idea of ‘denied boarding’ must be interpreted broadly to supply a large scope of passenger safety and covers additionally conditions of pre-emptively denied boarding, that’s boarding denied prematurely (paras 28-29). Nonetheless, passengers could declare their compensation regardless of not presenting themselves for boarding as CJEU perceives their scenario as not distinguishable from that of passengers whose reservation was transferred to a different flight by the airline, who fall inside the scope of Regulation 261/2004 pursuant to its Article 3(2)(b) (para 32). Additional argument stems from the historic goal of the Regulation 261/2004 – to stop passengers’ hardship brought on by overbooking of flights. As such, drafters didn’t anticipate pre-emptive denied boarding explicitly within the textual content of the provisions (para 34).

Proper to compensation

Additional query pertained to the applying of Article 5(1)(c)(i) of Regulation 261/2004, which excludes passengers’ proper to assert compensation for a cancelled flight, in the event that they had been knowledgeable concerning the cancellation no less than 2 weeks earlier than the scheduled departure time (para 42). As this provision introduces an exception to passenger rights, it should be interpreted strictly (para 44), and as such, it doesn’t apply to denied boarding however solely to cancelled flights (para 45).

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *