The Court of Justice of the EU
(CJEU) issued a Reasoned Order on the case C-394/14 Siewert et al., which clarified that a collision of an aircraft with
a mobile passenger staircase (ramp stair) on the tarmac does not constitute ‘extraordinary
circumstances’, which exonerate the air carrier from its duty to provide
compensation for long delay under the Regulation
(EC) No 261/2004 on passenger rights in the event of long delay, cancellation
of flight and denied boarding.
The case was about a total flight
delay of 6,5 hours in a flight from Antalya (Turkey) to Frankfurt am Main
(Germany) operated by the German carrier Condor. The carrier denied compensation
to passengers, evoking ‘extraordinary circumstances’, i.e. that the delay was
due to aircraft damage caused by a collision with a ramp stair at Stuttgart
airport. The damage made necessary the replacement of the aircraft that would conduct
the flight.
The German County Court of Rüsselsheim
requested a preliminary ruling, referring following questions to the CJEU:
‘1) Must the extraordinary circumstance
within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 1 relate
directly to the booked flight?
2) If extraordinary circumstances
which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must
the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance
with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary
circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?
3) Are adverse actions by third
parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that
constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted to be
deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of
Regulation No 261/2004?
4) If the answer to Question 3 is
in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who
(airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?’
The CJEU found unnecessary the
answer to the first two questions, given that it has already ruled on these
questions in other cases, implying mainly the judgments on the cases C-549/07
Wallentin-Hermann and C-294/10
Eglitis, Ratnieks. Hence, the Court
issued a Reasoned Order under Art. 99 of its Rules
of Procedure, instead of delivering a judgment.
To answer the third and fourth
questions, the Court relied on its previous case law regarding the notion of ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ as a reason to exempt the air carrier from its obligation to
compensate passengers for delay or cancellation of a flight [Art. 5 (3) Reg.
261/2004]. Extraordinary circumstances are events beyond the carrier’s control,
which could not have been avoided even if the carrier had taken all technically
and economically reasonable measures. This provision introduces an exception to
a general rule; thus, it is to be strictly interpreted.
Afterwards, the Court clarified
that technical problems can be regarded as ‘extraordinary circumstances’, only
if they are related to an event not inherent in the normal exercise of the air
carrier’s activity and are beyond its actual control on account of their nature
or origin. This does not include the case of a collision with a mobile staircase
on the tarmac, because such staircases are widely used in the air
transportation of passengers and air carriers are often confronted with the problems
related with their use.
Finally, the CJEU reminded that
the duties of the carrier established in Reg. 261/2004 are without prejudice to
its right to obtain redress against third parties that caused the delay,
according to Art. 13 of the Regulation.
As a result, the CJEU found that
events, such as in the present case, do not exempt the air carrier from its
duty to compensate passengers.
No comments:
Post a Comment