EN
Aviation

Procedural aspects of Regulation 261

logo
Legal news
calendar 30 August 2016
globus Denmark

The European Commission recently issued a notice containing guidelines for the interpretation of Regulation 261/2004. In the last couple of newsletters, we have – on the basis of the newly issued guidelines – focused on some of the issues we often see in our daily work. In this last newsletter in the series regarding the guidelines we will focus on some of the procedural aspects of the regulation.

When passengers encounter delays, cancellations, etc. and wishes to be compensated, the passengers must first turn to the airline in order to make a formal complaint.

The European Commission’s recommendation in the Guidelines is that the airlines should reply within two months. If the passenger is not satisfied with the outcome of the complaint the passenger will have to turn to the National Enforcement Body (NEB) or the courts.

The national enforcement body

In order for Regulation 261 to be effective, the member states have to designate a National Enforcement Body where passengers can submit their complaint to. In Denmark, the Danish Transportation and Construction Agency (the Transportation Agency) is the designated NEB.

The NEB is – among other things – responsible for an effective enforcement of Regulation 261. According to the Guidelines and the case-law of the CJEU (C-145/15 and C-146/15), Regulation 261 makes it possible for countries to choose how this responsibility can be carried out, leaving room for flexibility.

Airlines should therefore be aware of the fact that the NEB can have different roles and procedures in different countries. In some countries, the NEB solely uses passengers’ complaints in their general monitoring and sanctioning of airlines which are not complying with Regulation 261. Thus, in these countries the NEB does not assist individual passenger claims regarding compensation pursuant to Regulation 261.

However, the CJEU has confirmed that the Regulation does not prevent countries from adopting legislation which obligates the NEB to apply measures in response to individual complaints. These measures can either be enforceable or not. In Denmark, decisions from the Transportation Agency must be complied with, otherwise the airline may be prosecuted. However, the decisions are not binding for the courts. Ultimately, passengers must therefore turn to the courts in Denmark if the airline is unwilling to act according to the decision of the Agency.

Jurisdiction of the courts

If passengers choose to go through the court system, they must file a lawsuit in a court with jurisdiction.

When it comes to jurisdiction, passengers can – according to the Guidelines – choose between three different jurisdictions. The country

  1. where the airline is domiciled,
  2. where the agreed airport of departure is located, or
  3. where the agreed airport of arrival is located

Thus, if a passenger buys a ticket from London Heathrow Airport to Copenhagen Airport, but the plane is diverted to Malmö Airport in Sweden, the possible dispute arising hereof can be brought before either an English or Danish court.

Time limits

In regard to procedural aspects, it is very important to note time limits for filing a complaint. However, Regulation 261 does not establish any time limits for bringing actions in the national courts. Thus, this issue is subject to the national legislation of each country and its notion varies from country to country.

In general, the time limits are calculated from the day of the event (e.g. the delay / cancellation). The only way to suspend the time bar is by bringing action before the courts. However, be aware that this is only in general.

Another important thing to note is that inaction runs simultaneously with the time limit. This means for instance, that in Sweden a case can in general be dismissed after 4 years of inaction from the passenger. In Denmark, no specific limit applies, except the general 3-year time bar.

Easy filing systems and airlines’ response to passengers

It is the opinion of IUNO that – in order for airlines to minimize the administrative work and to avoid unnecessary legal action from claims farmers – airlines should develop an accessible portal for passengers to submit their claims. Most of the international airlines have this system already. The Commission elaborates on this aspect and recommends that the airline should reply within two months. After that period of time, the passenger can freely apply the case to the NEB or the court. Thus, IUNO would advise airlines to let the passengers know that they have a maximum response time of two months and in this regard refer to the Commission’s Guidelines.

When passengers encounter delays, cancellations, etc. and wishes to be compensated, the passengers must first turn to the airline in order to make a formal complaint.

The European Commission’s recommendation in the Guidelines is that the airlines should reply within two months. If the passenger is not satisfied with the outcome of the complaint the passenger will have to turn to the National Enforcement Body (NEB) or the courts.

The national enforcement body

In order for Regulation 261 to be effective, the member states have to designate a National Enforcement Body where passengers can submit their complaint to. In Denmark, the Danish Transportation and Construction Agency (the Transportation Agency) is the designated NEB.

The NEB is – among other things – responsible for an effective enforcement of Regulation 261. According to the Guidelines and the case-law of the CJEU (C-145/15 and C-146/15), Regulation 261 makes it possible for countries to choose how this responsibility can be carried out, leaving room for flexibility.

Airlines should therefore be aware of the fact that the NEB can have different roles and procedures in different countries. In some countries, the NEB solely uses passengers’ complaints in their general monitoring and sanctioning of airlines which are not complying with Regulation 261. Thus, in these countries the NEB does not assist individual passenger claims regarding compensation pursuant to Regulation 261.

However, the CJEU has confirmed that the Regulation does not prevent countries from adopting legislation which obligates the NEB to apply measures in response to individual complaints. These measures can either be enforceable or not. In Denmark, decisions from the Transportation Agency must be complied with, otherwise the airline may be prosecuted. However, the decisions are not binding for the courts. Ultimately, passengers must therefore turn to the courts in Denmark if the airline is unwilling to act according to the decision of the Agency.

Jurisdiction of the courts

If passengers choose to go through the court system, they must file a lawsuit in a court with jurisdiction.

When it comes to jurisdiction, passengers can – according to the Guidelines – choose between three different jurisdictions. The country

  1. where the airline is domiciled,
  2. where the agreed airport of departure is located, or
  3. where the agreed airport of arrival is located

Thus, if a passenger buys a ticket from London Heathrow Airport to Copenhagen Airport, but the plane is diverted to Malmö Airport in Sweden, the possible dispute arising hereof can be brought before either an English or Danish court.

Time limits

In regard to procedural aspects, it is very important to note time limits for filing a complaint. However, Regulation 261 does not establish any time limits for bringing actions in the national courts. Thus, this issue is subject to the national legislation of each country and its notion varies from country to country.

In general, the time limits are calculated from the day of the event (e.g. the delay / cancellation). The only way to suspend the time bar is by bringing action before the courts. However, be aware that this is only in general.

Another important thing to note is that inaction runs simultaneously with the time limit. This means for instance, that in Sweden a case can in general be dismissed after 4 years of inaction from the passenger. In Denmark, no specific limit applies, except the general 3-year time bar.

Easy filing systems and airlines’ response to passengers

It is the opinion of IUNO that – in order for airlines to minimize the administrative work and to avoid unnecessary legal action from claims farmers – airlines should develop an accessible portal for passengers to submit their claims. Most of the international airlines have this system already. The Commission elaborates on this aspect and recommends that the airline should reply within two months. After that period of time, the passenger can freely apply the case to the NEB or the court. Thus, IUNO would advise airlines to let the passengers know that they have a maximum response time of two months and in this regard refer to the Commission’s Guidelines.

Receive our newsletter

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Similar

logo
Aviation

18 December 2024

Sweden to abolish aviation tax

logo
Aviation

11 December 2024

ICAO raises airline liability limits

logo
Aviation

19 November 2024

Passenger tax errors will cost DKK 10,000 each

logo
Aviation

30 October 2024

Long delay on the horizon

logo
Aviation

9 October 2024

Staff shortages in baggage handling can be an extraordinary circumstance

logo
Aviation

18 September 2024

Guidelines for the Danish air passenger tax

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Senior legal assistant

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Senior legal advisor

Amanda

Jepsen Bregnhardt

Senior legal assistant

Andrea

Brix Danielsen

Legal advisor

Anna

Bonander

Legal advisor

Anna

Kreutzmann

Legal manager

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Junior legal advisor

Anton

Winther Hansen

Senior legal advisor

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal advisor

Aurora

Maria Thunes Truyen

Junior associate

Benedicte

Rodian

Senior legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Chanel

Adzioski

Legal assistant

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Junior legal advisor

Clara

Caballero Stephensen

Junior legal advisor

Daniel

Bornhøft Nielsen

Legal assistant

Ea

Tingkær Hesselfeldt

Junior legal assistant

Ellen

Priess-Hansen

Senior legal assistant

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Senior legal advisor

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Legal advisor

Emilia

Naledi Madonsela Mikkelsen

Legal assistant

Emma

Engvang Hansen

Senior legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal manager

Feline

Honoré Jepsen

Junior legal assistant

Fransine

Andersson

Senior legal advisor

Frederikke

Kirkegaard Thalund

Senior legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Junior legal advisor

Frida

Aas Ahlquist

Senior legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Senior legal advisor

Holger

Koch-Klarskov

Junior legal advisor

Ian

Englev Jensen

Legal assistant

Ida

Marie Skovgaard Rubæk

Junior legal assistant

Izabell

Celina Bastrup Lüthje

Senior legal assistant

Jacqueline

Lucia Chrillesen

Legal assistant

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Josefine

Sørensen

Junior legal assistant

Julia

Wolfe

Legal advisor

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Legal advisor

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Senior legal manager

Karoline

Nordved

Legal assistant

Kateryna

Buriak

Legal advisor

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Luna

Bennesen

Junior legal assistant

Marie

Møller Christensen

Junior legal assistant

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Junior legal advisor

Nanna

Damkjær

Junior legal advsior

Nikita

Brinck Søberg

Junior legal assistant

Nourchaine

Sellami

Legal advisor

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Legal advisor

Selma

Agopian

Senior EU associate

Selma

Klinker Brodersen

Junior legal advisor

Silja

Brünnich Fogh von Deden

Legal assistant

Silje

Moen Knutsen

Legal advisor

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Senior legal assistant

Ulrikke

Sejersbøl Christiansen

Legal assistant

Victoria

Mai Gregaard Handberg

Junior legal advisor