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

12 June 2024

Strike in the sister company

logo
Aviation

22 May 2024

Sudden illness was an unusual circumstance

logo
Aviation

3 May 2024

Proof of payment

logo
Aviation

10 April 2024

Refund through travel agency

logo
Aviation

20 March 2024

Six-hour delay in sight – no compensation

logo
Aviation

26 February 2024

Cancelled tickets resulted in denied boarding

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Junior legal assistant

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Legal advisor

Amalie

Sofie Sveen Kvam

Legal assistant

Amanda

Jepsen Bregnhardt

Legal assistant

Andrea

Brix Danielsen

Legal advisor

Anna

Bonander

Junior legal advisor

Anna

Kreutzmann

Senior legal assistant

Anne

Poulsen

Senior legal advisor

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Senior legal assistant

Anton

Winther Hansen

Legal advisor

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal advisor

Benedicte

Rodian

Legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Senior legal assistant

Clara

Caballero Stephensen

Legal assistant

Ellen

Priess-Hansen

Legal assistant

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Senior legal advisor

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Junior legal advisor

Emma

Engvang Hansen

Legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal manager

Fransine

Andersson

Legal advisor

Frederik

Dybro Mikkelsen

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Kirkegaard Thalund

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Senior legal assistant

Frida

Aas Ahlquist

Legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Legal advisor

Gustav

Vestergaard

Legal assistant

Hanna

Honerød Augestad

Junior legal advisor

Ida

Ralfkiær Rask

Legal assistant

Isabella

Graae Norsker

Junior legal advisor

Isabella

Rocio Nielsen

Junior legal advisor

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Legal assistant

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Junior legal advisor

Karl Emil

Tang Nielsen

Legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Legal manager

Karoline

Nordved

Junior legal assistant

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mathias

Bech Linaa

Junior legal advisor

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Legal manager (on leave)

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Legal advisor

Selma

Agopian

Senior EU associate

Selma

Klinker Brodersen

Junior legal advisor

Silje

Moen Knutsen

Junior legal advisor

Sille

Lyng Mejding

Legal advisor

Simone

Bjergskov Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Sofija

Cabrilo

Legal assistant

Sophia

Maria Dahl-Jensen

Senior legal advisor

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Legal assistant