In two judgments issued on 25 January, the CJEU addressed questions associated to the passengers’ proper to assert compensation for a protracted flight delay. The bizarre side 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 might 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 moderately 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 manner, 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 might 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 due to this fact can be not eligible for the compensation (para 22). The Courtroom notes that the passenger might have skilled an inconvenience as they needed to discover an alternate technique of transport themselves, however that isn’t a severe inconvenience pursuant to the Courtroom (para 23). It ought to be talked about that additionally on this case the passenger obtained some type of redress as they might declare reimbursement for the flight ticket pursuant to nationwide regulation.
Each circumstances then restrict the appliance of the Regulation 261/2004 however in a manner in step with the target of excessive degree of passenger safety. Passengers are usually not left with no recourse for claiming compensation for particular person damages.
