Thursday, January 26, 2006

Airline Blacklist Regulation in force

By February 16 2006 each EU member state will have to communicate to the commission all air carriers that are subject to an operating ban in its territory. Within one month the commission will then decide on the imposition of an operating ban throughout the EU and establish a joint list. At least every three months, the commission should consider whether the list needs to be updated. For this reason, member states and the European Aviation Safety Agency should communicate all relevant information to the commission. The list will be published on the Internet and in the Official Journal. Air carriers, tour operators and ticket sellers), national civil aviation authorities, the European Aviation Safety Agency and all European airports should bring the list to the attention of passengers. Furthermore the regulation gives passengers a right to be informed of the identity of the operating air carrier at the time of reservation and of any subsequent change. Passengers will have a right to reimbursement or re-routing from their air carriage contractor if their flight is operated by a listed carrier. The new regulation will apply to all airlines, including non-EU airlines where the carriage started in the European Union, and irrespective of whether the flight in question departed from an EU airport. The provisions relating to information of passengers will come into force July 16th 2006. Member states have to ensure compliance with these rules and to implement penalties for non-compliance. The regulation is published online here.

(Originally posted by Michael Wukoschitz)

Monday, January 23, 2006

Order against human rights campaigner to stay away from Frankfurt Airport confirmed

German Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed an order by Frankfurt Airport against a human rights campaigner to stay away from the airport premises. The campaigner had handed out flyers to passengers containing a protest against deportation of a foreigner and asking passengers to refuse to turn off their cell phones in order to impede take off. BGH held that the airport was entitled to prevent the campaigner from entering its premises as she caused disruption of the airport operation. The campaigner could not rely on her freedom of free speech as there was no obligation of the airport to tolerate interferences in air traffic (BGH 20.01.2006, V ZR 134/05).

(Originally posted by Michael Wukoschitz)

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Regulation on Compensation and Assistance for Air Passengers is valid

The International Air Transport Association (IATA)and the European Low Fares Airline Association (ELFAA), which represents the interests of 10 low-fare airlines from nine European countries, contested the United Kingdom’s implementation of the regulation before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. They raised before the High Court questions concerning the validity of the regulation, in particular of the provisions relating to cancellations, delay and compensation. The High Court referred those questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. With regard to the compatibility of the regulation with the Montreal Convention, the Court of Justice established that this international Convention, which regulates, amongst other things, the liability of air carriers in the event of delay, binds the Community. The Court held that the assistance and ‘care’ for passengers prescribed by the Community regulation in the event of a long delay to a flight constituted standardised and immediate compensatory measures. They were not among the measures whose institution is regulated by the Convention and cannot therefore be considered inconsistent with the Montreal Convention. With regard to compliance with the obligation to state reasons and observance of the principle of legal certainty, the Court stated that the provisions of the regulation that are at issue lay down precisely and clearly the obligations owed by air carriers, clearly disclose the essential objective pursued and are unambiguous. With regard to observance of the principle of proportionality, the Court held that the compensation which passengers may claim when they have been informed of a flight cancellation too late did not appear manifestly inappropriate to the objective pursued, given the existence of a ground for exemption upon which carriers may rely and of the conditions restricting the application of this obligation on carriers. With regard to observance of the principle of equal treatment, the Court held that the situation of undertakings operating in each of the different transport sectors was not comparable. Passengers whose flights are cancelled or subject to a long delay were in an objectively different situation from that of passengers on other means of transport in the event of incidents of the same nature. The Court concluded, therefore, that its examination had revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the provisions of the regulation that are at issue. (PRESS RELEASE No 1/06 of the ECJ; see

(Originally posted by Michael Wukoschitz)

Switzerland joins European Aviation Safety Agency

Switzerland today officially became a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency. It is the fourth non-EU country to adopt European Union aviation safety legislation after Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Patrick Goudou, Executive Director of the Agency, said: “I welcome Switzerland’s membership. It is an important step towards a more integrated safety system in Europe and underlines the key role of the Agency in this system”. The four non-EU countries are represented in the Agency’s Management Board and nationals of these countries are eligible to work for the Agency.
Source: EASA-Press release 2006-11-30

(Originally posted by Michael Wukoschitz)