ECJ decision: TUI and Nelson (Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ECJ decision: TUI and Nelson (Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10).
23/10/12: The ECJ sided with passengers in the above case. Full text of the decision is not yet available but summary is here press summary
Air carriers operating a flight departing from or arriving into Europe are liable to passengers for 'long delay' in the sum of Euro 250 for all flights of 1,500km or less; Euro 400 for all intra-community flights more than 1,500km and for all other flights between 1,500 and 3,500km; Euro 600 for all flights not falling within either of the first two categories.
The liability is not restricted to those passengers who made a claim prior to the case being heard. It applies to all passengers who are not time-barred to claim in respect of their delayed flight.
Air carriers operating a flight departing from or arriving into Europe are liable to passengers for 'long delay' in the sum of Euro 250 for all flights of 1,500km or less; Euro 400 for all intra-community flights more than 1,500km and for all other flights between 1,500 and 3,500km; Euro 600 for all flights not falling within either of the first two categories.
The liability is not restricted to those passengers who made a claim prior to the case being heard. It applies to all passengers who are not time-barred to claim in respect of their delayed flight.
Last edited by John R81; 25th Oct 2012 at 09:27.
FRABKK on LH Feb 2011 delayed by 14 hours. Claim lodged March 2011. Claim denied June 2011. Claim re-lodged Oct 2012, referring to ECJ ruling. Figure on getting compensation (€600 per person) ....oh, March next year?
Thinks: should I charge interest...?
Thinks: should I charge interest...?
Response from LH:
As mentioned in our previous e-mail dated ....., the reason for the delay of LH 772 was indeed an unforeseen technical defect. In cases where an unexpected defect occurs, provided we took all reasonable measures to prevent this defect, Lufthansa, as an airline, is exonerated from the obligation to provide compensation in accordance with the EU-Regulation 261/2004. (Ed: This is, of course, bullsh1t)
However, to take a step towards your reconciliation with Lufthansa, we will refrain from applying and providing proof of exoneration in this case. Without acknowledging any legal obligation and as goodwill, we will comply with your request and compensate you and your wife with an amount of 600 Euro each.
Just like that.
No threat of lawyers, just a clear reference to the ECJ ruling which denies any legal basis for their NOT paying compensation and specifying my expectations.
As mentioned in our previous e-mail dated ....., the reason for the delay of LH 772 was indeed an unforeseen technical defect. In cases where an unexpected defect occurs, provided we took all reasonable measures to prevent this defect, Lufthansa, as an airline, is exonerated from the obligation to provide compensation in accordance with the EU-Regulation 261/2004. (Ed: This is, of course, bullsh1t)
However, to take a step towards your reconciliation with Lufthansa, we will refrain from applying and providing proof of exoneration in this case. Without acknowledging any legal obligation and as goodwill, we will comply with your request and compensate you and your wife with an amount of 600 Euro each.
Just like that.
No threat of lawyers, just a clear reference to the ECJ ruling which denies any legal basis for their NOT paying compensation and specifying my expectations.
Last edited by RevMan2; 6th Nov 2012 at 14:29.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we don't know if that unforeseen technical deficit falls under extraordinary circumstances, or not. For example previous court rulings have sided with (I think it was) AF when two pieces of radio equipment failed on a RON away from home base. According to that airline's log those two pieces had never failed at the same time before.
I'm concerned this ruling will lead to grief, with crew under pressure to operate unsafe aircraft. With airline margins being just a few euros per passenger this is not helpful.
I'm concerned this ruling will lead to grief, with crew under pressure to operate unsafe aircraft. With airline margins being just a few euros per passenger this is not helpful.
Last edited by ExXB; 6th Nov 2012 at 14:39.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm concerned this ruling will lead to grief, with crew under pressure to operate unsafe aircraft. With airline margins being just a few euros per passenger this is not helpful.
Should point out that my original claim was for direct consequential damages of the delay - the hotel room in BKK (€150-ish) I could neither use nor cancel.
I would have been more than happy with that....
I would have been more than happy with that....
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A leading authority on air law has called the ECJ decision(s) 'a disgrace'.
13/11/2012 Compensation for flight delays: EU court abandons rule of law
13/11/2012 Compensation for flight delays: EU court abandons rule of law
