In two judgments issued on 25 January, the CJEU addressed questions associated to the passengers’ proper to say compensation for a protracted flight delay. The bizarre facet of each circumstances is that in neither of them passengers really skilled the delay, having determined to forego the delayed flight. Unsurprisingly, the CJEU determined in each circumstances that they may not then declare compensation from Regulation 261/2004.
C-474/22 – Laudamotion
On this case, a passenger in expectation of the delay, which might have led him to not make the enterprise assembly he was to journey for, determined to remain house slightly than go to the airport. His flight arrived on the closing vacation spot with a delay of three hours 22 minutes.
The CJEU emphasised that the lack of time that the compensation goals to alleviate is „not injury arising out of delay” however an inconvenience (para 27). All passengers expertise it the identical means, which allowed to standardise the compensatory measure. Opposite, nonetheless, to cancelled flights in case of a flight delay to be eligible for claiming compensation passengers have to current to check-in on the airport (para 30). On this case, the passenger was then not eligible for compensation as he didn’t current himself for check-in. Nevertheless, the Courtroom reminded that the passenger may declare additional compensation pursuant to Artwork. 12 Regulation 261/2004 for particular person injury, e.g., arising on account of having missed the enterprise assembly (paras 32-33).
C-54/23 – Laudamotion and Ryanair
Right here, the passenger averted the flight delay of 6 hours by reserving themselves on an alternate flight, which arrived on the closing vacation spot with a delay of fewer than 3 hours.
The CJEU focuses on the truth that the passenger didn’t expertise the inconvenience of a protracted delay, the lack of time, and subsequently can also be not eligible for the compensation (para 22). The Courtroom notes that the passenger may have skilled an inconvenience as they needed to discover an alternate technique of transport themselves, however that isn’t a critical inconvenience pursuant to the Courtroom (para 23). It must be talked about that additionally on this case the passenger acquired some type of redress as they may declare reimbursement for the flight ticket pursuant to nationwide regulation.
Each circumstances then restrict the applying of the Regulation 261/2004 however in a means in line with the target of excessive stage of passenger safety. Passengers should not left and not using a recourse for claiming compensation for particular person damages.
