Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3995 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Just a short notice worth lookin at case C-83/10. Is Art. 7 with EC261/2004 compatible with further compensation (like hotel costs, food, telephone, taxi)? At the moment british courts tend to subtract the compensation laid down in Art. 7 EC 261/2004. Hopefully a good outcome for consumers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a short notice worth lookin at case C-83/10. Is Art. 7 with EC261/2004 compatible with further compensation (like hotel costs, food, telephone, taxi)? At the moment british courts tend to subtract the compensation laid down in Art. 7 EC 261/2004. Hopefully a good outcome for consumers.

 

 

It may be several months or indeed a year or so before firstly the Advocate General states her Opinion on this case and secondly a few months later still before a judgement is given in this case.

 

IMO the word 'compensation' within EC 261/2004 refers to the compensation awarded under articles 5 & 7 whereas 'expenses' incurred under articles 8 & 9 are separate from and additional to 'compensation'.

 

Article 12 refers to further compensation (typically liquidated damages) which might be claimed under a number of avenues: Montreal Convention or Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 being just two.

 

You state that British Courts tend to subtract the compensation laid down in Art 7. Could you point me in the direction of such current rulings as I would be most interested in studying these.

 

For those interested in this case, the two questions which have been referrred for a judgement are as follows:

 

Is the term 'cancellation', defined in Article 2(l) of [Regulation EC No 261/2004], 1 to be interpreted as meaning only the failure of the flight to depart as planned or is it also to be interpreted as meaning any circumstance as a result of which the flight on which places are reserved takes off but fails to reach its destination, including the case in which the flight is forced to return to the airport of departure for technical reasons?

 

 

Is the term 'further compensation' used in Article 12 of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a cancellation, the national court may award compensation for damage, including non-material damage, for breach of a contract of carriage by air in accordance with rules established in national legislation and case-law on breach of contact or, on the contrary, must such compensation relate solely to appropriately substantiated expenses incurred by passengers and not adequately indemnified by the carrier in accordance with the requirements of Articles 8 and 9 of Regulation 261/2004/EC, even if such provisions have not been expressly relied upon or, lastly, are the two aforementioned definitions of the term further compensation compatible one with another?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashford County Court, Case: 6AS00169, Michael vs British Airways

Easyjet mentioned that court case where they rely on Art. 12 EG 261/2004. However, I am of the opinion that we should be entitled to the 250 EUR plus further expenses. The court should put the proceedings on hold until the ECJ makes a decision about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...