IFTTA News Update

• USA: DOT fines Virgin America for failing to make safety videos accessible to passengers with hearing impairments; 
• Australia: hotel not liable for security guard; 
• ECJ: the special VAT scheme for travel agents is not limited to sales of travel services to travellers;
• ECJ: Delayed rail passsengers are entitled to a partial price refund - even in cases of force majeure; 
• German Supreme Court: "bird strike" constitutes "extraordinary cicumstances"; 
• Germany: Supreme Court reconfirms compensation for missed connecting flight; 
• Canada: CTA orders Air Canada and Porter Airlines to revise domestic tariff provisions; 
• USA: “dirtiest hotel in America” not defamatory; 
• UK: Virgin Atlantic looses dispute over flat bed airline seat patent;
• USA: New Jersey judge dismisses hotel waitresses' gender discrimination claim; 
• Committee on Transport and Tourism of the European Parliament publishes Draft Report on the Commission's proposal for a new Air Passenger Rights Regulation; 
• Canada: CTA decides on overbooking - and finds European compensation system unreasonable;
• U.S. Court: American citizens have a constitutionally protected right to travel by air; 
• USA: DOT fines ticket agents for code-share disclosure violations; 
• Egypt: tourism minister sends message to travel industry via YouTube; 
• U.S. travel industry worried about anti-gay law in Russia; 
• USA: DOT releases guidance for Internet flight-search tools;
• German court requests ECJ preliminary ruling with regard to passport data;
• UK: OFT consults on proposed hotel booking commitments;
• IFTTA Law Review 2-2013 available online; 
• Canada: Federal Court of Appeal decides on exclusivity of Montreal Convention liabiliy rules;
• USA: equal rights for same-sex spouses in visa applications;
• German Supreme Court asks ECJ for interpretation of article 12 of Reg. 261/2004; 
• Recent EU Implementing Regulations in aviation matters; 
• Austrian Supreme Court: "bad weather" not enough to release air carrier from compensation for cancellation; 
• Italy: OTAs succeed against Ryanair over website access;
•  New Package Travel Directive; 
• Austrian Supreme Court: ticket office must disclose commission; 
• USA: DOT fines Delta for violating Denied Boarding Rules; 
• German court asks ECJ to clarify offsetting rules in Air Passenger Rights Regulation; 
• Tourist’s rights and duties in Belo Horizonte, Brazil; 
• USA: DOT fines ticket agent for violating code-share disclosure rules; 
• Austria: Supreme Court decides on travel insurance; 
• USA: Cruise industry adopts passenger bill of rights; 
• California: Delta wins in mobile app case; 
• UK: Civil Aviation Authority and Office of Fair Trading warn travel industry not to mislead consumers; 
• IFTTA Law Review 1-2013 available online; 
• German Supreme Court: air passengers entitled to compensation for missed connecting flight; 
• CJEU: "Sturgeon" judgement did not infringe the principle of separation of powers; 
• Germany: Supreme court decides on malperformance of Greenland cruise; 
• New German reference for ECJ preliminary ruling regarding Air Passenger Rights Regulation; 
• Swiss Ferderal Court: yacht charter including crew does not constitute a travel package; 
• Report on new tourism legislation in China; 
• USA: Metropolitan Museum of Art sued over admissions fee policy; 
• German court: lessor of holiday apartment must include costs of final cleaning into the advertised price; 
• USA: DOT fines Alitalia for deceptive practices; 
• EU: MEPs welcome Commission proposal on air passenger rights; 
• UK to implement new Air Passenger Duty; 
• USA: Appeals Court Revives Wheelchair Lawsuit vs. United Airlines;

Australia: compensation for inhaling smoke from pyrolysed oil in cabin of aircraft

The New South Wales Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by East-West Airlines against a flight attendant who inhaled smoke in an aircraft cabin 18 years ago and had developed a persistent cough. The New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal had previously found that due to the smoke from pyrolysed oil she was exposed to dust, which caused her to develop her cough and awarded the flight attendant $139,000.

East West Airlines Ltd v. Turner [2010] NSWCA 53; BC201001873 - 01 Apr 2010 - Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal.

Judgement available here>>.

USA: summary judgement for airline in overbooking case upheld

Andrew P. Kalick purchased tickets for a North West Airlines flight from Kansas City to Philadelphia and was denied boarding as the flight was full. An NWA agent advised Kalick that she had instead booked him on an American Airlines flight to Philadelphia with a layover in Dallas. For reasons that are unclear from the record, Kalick missed his connecting flight and had to stay in the Dallas airport overnight and arrived in Philadelphia one day later.

Kalick filed a suit in the District Court alleging that NWA violated Department of Transportation regulations concerning compensation of passengers bumped from oversold flights. In addition, Kalick asserted state common law claims for breach of contract and fraud. He requested compensatory and punitive damages totaling $163,000.

The District Court entered an order concluding that the DOT regulations do not create a private right of action. Determining that any punitive damages claims based on Kalick’s state claims were pre-empted and, therefore, that Kalick could not meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kalick’s remaining state law claims. As a result, the District Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to Kalick’s right to litigate the contract and fraud claims in state court.

Upon appeal by Kalick, the Third Circuit Court upheld the trial court’s order. First, the appeals court held that federal question jurisdiction was lacking because Section 250.9 does not create a private right of action, noting that every other circuit addressing this issue had ruled in the same manner. Next, the appeals court agreed that diversity jurisdiction was also lacking because the plaintiff had failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he could recover an amount exceeding $75,000 on his contract and fraud claims. Finally, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the “exceptional circumstances” necessary for the exercise of such jurisdiction.

Case Kalick v. Northwest Airlines Corp. (3d Cir. (N.J.) No. 09-3608, Mar. 29, 2010)
Full opinion available here>>.

UK: law suit over flight bans caused by volcanic ash?

EasyJet reportedly is planning to bring a class action lawsuit to win compensation for flight bans imposed by Europe’s air safety authorities. Most of Europe’s airspace was closed for nearly a week from April 15 after a huge ash cloud from the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull stranded millions of passengers and paralysed freight and businesses.

Source: Times online; find article here>>.

Germany: who can claim compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment?

Plaintiff had booked a Danube cruise arrangement with defendant for himself and his wife. As defendant cancelled the cruise, plaintiff claimed for compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment. Defendant payed a compensation half of the packacke price for one person to plaintiff but refused to pay any compensation in regard to plaintiff's wife, arguing plaintiff had had no authorisation by his wife when asserting the claim. A later assignation of the claim had missed the one month deadline. Plaintiff therefore filed a law suit.

Both, court of first instance (AG Frankfurt am Main) and appelate court (LG Frankfurt am Main) granted the claim: even though until to the assignation only plaintiff's wife herself had been entitled to the claim, the assignation constituted a retroactive authorization of the plaintiff.

In judgement Xa ZR 124/09 of May 26, 2010, German Supreme Court upheld these decisions. Though the court tended to the view that plaintiff as contract partner of defendant was entitled to file an individual suit this issue didn't have to be definitely clarified as the assignation had constituted a retroactive authorization, anyway.

Source: BGH press release 109/2010 of May 26, 2010

USA: Airline loses pet dog

A Canadian couple has turned to the internet for help in finding their pet dog Paco, lost by Delta Airlines, after he was checked in for a flight from Mexico City to Detroit. Delta at first said that the dog remained in its cage at Mexico City airport. But then the airline admitted that Paco had disappeared — and offered a $200 travel voucher in compensation. Delta has meanwhile increased its offer two more $200 vouchers plus $380 to cover the costs of Paco’s shots, food, leash and the kennel.

Source: Times Online; find article here>>.

Bulgaria: reference for a preliminary ruling on PTD

Bulgarian "Varhoven Kasatsionen sad" filed a reference for preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Package Travel Directive 90/314/EEC (PTD). The court wants to know whether the PTD is applicable to the present case (no details of the case available in ECJ publication). The further questions are:

• How is the term 'other tourist services' in Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 90/314/EEC to be interpreted, and does that term cover the organiser's obligation to insure the consumer?

• - What risks must be covered by the insurance contract concluded, on behalf of the consumer, between the organiser and the insurance company?
• - What type of insurance must be provided by the insurance contract concluded, on behalf of the consumer, between the organiser and the insurance company: a group insurance policy covering all the participants in the package tour or an individual insurance policy covering each individual participant in the package tour?

• Is the organiser's obligation under Article 4(1)(b)(iv) of Directive 90/314/EEC to provide the consumer before the start of the tour with information on the optional conclusion of an insurance policy to cover the costs of assistance, including repatriation, in the event of an accident to be interpreted as meaning that it includes the organiser's obligation to conclude an individual insurance policy with the consumer covering the costs of assistance, including repatriation, in the event of an accident?
• Is the organiser of the tour obliged under Directive 90/314/EEC to provide the consumer with the original insurance policy before the tour commences?
• How is the term 'damage' resulting for the consumer from the failure to perform, or the improper performance of, the contract in Article 5(2) of Directive 90/314/EEC to be interpreted?
• Does the term 'damage' resulting for the consumer from the failure to perform, or the improper performance of, the contract in Article 5(2) of Directive 90/314/EEC also cover liability in respect of non-material damage suffered by the consumer?
• How are the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 5(2) of Directive 90/314/EEC to be interpreted in the event of claims for compensation in respect of non-material damage on the ground of personal injury which are based on the failure to perform, or the improper performance of, the services under the contract, including the failure to provide the consumer with the original insurance policy, in the case where the latter does not provide for any limitation of liability to pay compensation?

Full text of reference C-32/10 available here>>.
First reported to IFTTA by Stephan Keiler.

German Supreme Court: no compensation for flight cancellation due to bad weather condidtions

Plaintiff had booked a flight from XRY (Jerez, Spain) to HHN (Hahn, Germany) for himself and his wife for Oct. 25, 2007 with Ryan Air. Departure was scheduled 10:00 a.m.. Due to foggy conditions at XRY, the flight was cancelled. The aircraft landed in SVQ (Sevilla, Spain) and returned to HHN from there. Plaintiff and his wife were offered an alternative flight on Oct. 27 which they refused. They booked a flight from MAD (Madrid, Spain) to FFM (Frankfurt, Germany) for Oct. 25 instead.

Plaintiff sued for compensation of EUR 400 each under Art. 7 Reg. (EC) 261/2004 as well as additional costs of the flight MAD-FFM.

First instance court (Amtsgericht Simmern) dismissed the claim. Appellate court granted the claim to a large extent.

Upon appeal by Ryan Air, German Supreme Court (BGH) dismissed the claim with regard to compensation under Art. 7 and repealed the judgement with regard to additional costs for procedural supplement.

In judgement Xa ZR 96/09 of March 25, 2010, BGH held that whether a cancellation reasonably could have been avoided had to be judged from case to case. Under the particular circumstances it had not been foreseeable how long the foggy conditions would last. Taking into regard the impact on the further flight schedule it would therefore not have been reasonable for Ryan Air to postpone the decision on cancellation.

Anyway, by offering alternative transportation not before Oct. 27, Ryan Air may have failed to comply with its obligation to provide adequate alternative transportation and may be liable for additional costs - which appellate court will have to consider in further proceedings .

Source: BGH press release 64/2010, available in German here>>.

Evaluation of Regulation 261/2004/EC

The final report (110 pages) as of February 2010 made by Steer Davies Gleave / London for the European Commission DG Transport can be found and downloaded here:

Report

Sturgeon v. Condor: German Supreme Court grants compensation to plaintiffs

Following the preliminary ruling of the ECJ in Case C-402/07 - Sturgeon v. Condor, German Supreme Court (BGH) in judgement Xa ZR 95/06 delivered Feb. 18. 2010, granted plaintiffs' claim for compensation. BGH saw no reason for another reference for preliminary ruling as requested by Condor: there were no doubts that Reg. (EC) 261/2004 was valid and compatible with the Montreal Convention. ECJ had made clear that the Regulation provides for compensation in cases of inordinate delay if interpreted according to the principle of equal treatment.

As Condor had failed to prove extraordinary circumstances decision had to made in favour of plaintiffs.

Source: BGH press release 40/2010 of Feb 19, 2010. Find full text in German here>>.

Germany: Lufthansa facing a four-day strike of its pilots

German pilots’ union Vereinigung Cockpit has called on Lufthansa pilots to participate in a four-day strike from Feb. 22 to 25. Lufthansa said the decision was made despite willingness shown by the airline to reach a negotiated settlement. Vereingung Cockpit tries to explain their reasons in a passenger information sheet.

Lufthansa's German website provides a link to their passenger information ("Informationen zum angekündigten Pilotenstreik"); however there is no such link or information in the English version. The information provided in German claims that in case of a strike and resulting irregularities passenger care will rank first for Lufthansa. At the current stage they grant free re-booking to other Lufthansa flights subject to certain conditions and restrictions. In case of a strike they announce to allow free cancellation or re-routing.

There is no mentioning of compensation for cancelled flights according to Reg. 261/2004, though. Media report that Lufthansa intends to rely on "extraordinary circumstances". However, in C-549/07 - Wallentin-Hermann ECJ has taught us that the term "extraordinary circumstances" requires a narrow interpretation an that recital 14 of the Regulation did not mean that the events listed there themselves constitute extraordinary circumstances, but only that they may produce such circumstances. Even though "strike" is mentioned as a potential reason for extraordinary circumstances in recital 14 of the Regulation, thus there remains doubt whether a strike of the operating carrier's own staff can amount to this exoneration.

A new reference for preliminary ruling seems a likely consequence ...

ECJ Joined Cases C‑402/07 and C‑432/07 (Sturgeon ea)

Defendant (Condor Flugdienst GmbH) is of the opinion that ECJ exceeded it's competence when deciding indemnities to be paid in case of a delay of 3 or more hours under Air Passengers' Rights Regulation 261/2004/EC (judgement as of November 19, 2009). German's Highest Court BGH reopened the proceedings (Case 2 BvE 2 / 08) to debate a new preliminary ruling before the ECJ in the light of the Lisbon Judgment of German's Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) as of June 30, 2009 (Cases 2 BvE 2/08, 2 BvE 5/08, 2 BvR 1010/08, 2 BvR 1022/08, 2 BvR 1259/08, 2 BvR 182/09).

Germany: new Supreme Court decision on liability under Reg. 261/2004

Plaintiff had booked a round trip flight FMO-FRA-GRU-FLN-GRU-MUC-FMO with defendant air carrier (LH). The section GRU-MUC was a codesharing flight with RG, recognizable by indication of both flight numbers (LH/RG) and the note "operated by RG". The flight GRU-MUC was cancelled and plaintiff rerouted to a later LH flight to FRA. Due to delayed departure of the latter flight of more than 4 hrs, plaintiff missed her connecting flight to FMO. As the next available flight FRA-FMO was also cancelled she was rerouted once more to CGN.

Plaintiff sued LH for compensation of EUR 600 under Reg. (EC) 261/2004. First instance court granted the claim, court of appeal dismissed same. Upon further appeal of plaintiff, German Supreme Court (BGH) repealed the judgement remanding the case to the court of appeal:

"Operating carrier" in art. 5 par. 1 lit c of Reg. 261/2004 had to be interpreted the same way as "actual carrier" in art. 39 Montreal Convention, thus meaning the carrier which actually operated the flight regardless of an exclusive contractual relationship with another carrier. The purpose of a high level of consumer protection would not require a different interpretation. In case of code sharing only the carrier actually operating the flight was able to influence its performance. The purpose of the provision would not allow to regard the other cooperation partner of the code share flight as being "operating" same as well.

Operating carrier of the flight GRU-MUC had therefore only been RG resulting into no liabilty of LH under Reg. 261/2004 for the cancellation of the original flight GRU-MUC.

Anyway, this was not sufficient to dismiss the claim as the LH flight GRU-MUC which plaintiff was rerouted to was delayed for more than 4 hrs resulting into a delayed arrival of considerably more than 3 hrs. Given ECJ decision C-402, 432/7 (Sturgeon/Condor and Böck/Air France), passengers suffering such delay had a similar claim for compensation like passengers of cancelled flights. The claim for compensation could therefore be based on the delay of the substitue flight.

Court of appeal will therefore have to render a new judgement which will have to consider whether the technical problems - which due to its conclusions had caused the delay - had been of a nature that would constitute "extraordinary circumstances" under art. 5 par. 3 of Reg. 261/2004.

Full text of BGH judgement Xa ZR 132/08 of Nov. 26, 2009 available in German here>>.

Germany: No Supreme Court decision on compensation for discontinued flight

Plaintiffs had booked a flight from Frankfurt to the Maldives with a stopover in the United Arab Emirates. When they landed in the Emirates the flight was discontinued and they were re-routed and arrived at the Maldives with a delay of more than 30 hrs. The claimed for compensation under Reg. 261/2004. As both first instance (AG Rüsselsheim) and second instance (LG Darmstadt) dismissed the claim they filed a further appeal to German Supreme Court (BGH) in which they explicitly referred to the ECJ's most recent decision in cases C-402/07 - Sturgeon/Condor and C-432/07 - Böck u. Lepuschitz/Air France (see related news item).

However, before scheduled date of Supreme Court's decison the claim was settled!

Source: BGH press release re cases Xa ZR 72/09 and 86/09; text available in German here>>.

Compensation in the Event of Airline Bankruptcy

Motion for a Resolution by European Parliament

Mathieu Grosch, Artur Zasada on behalf of the PPE Group

Saïd El Khadraoui on behalf of the S&D Group

Dirk Sterckx on behalf of the ALDE Group

Michael Cramer, Frieda Brepoels on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

B7-0153/2009

European Parliament resolution on passenger compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy

The European Parliament, – having regard to the oral question of 15 October 2009 to the Commission on passenger

compensation in the event of airline bankruptcy (O-0089/09 – B7-0210/2009),

– having regard to Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91,

– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community,

– having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas Council Directive 90/314/EEC regulates aspects of the package holiday business and provides for appropriate compensation and repatriation of consumers in the event of the bankruptcy of package holiday firms,

B. whereasRegulation(EC)No2027/97establishesthenatureofaircarriers'liabilityinthe event of accidents and compensation arrangements for passengers,

C. whereasRegulation(EC)No785/2004laysdowntheinsurancerequirementsaircarriers and aircraft operators must meet,

D. whereas Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 provides for compensation for and assistance to passengers who are denied boarding or whose flights are subject to cancellation or long delay,

E. whereasRegulation(EC)No1008/2008establishesstringentfinancialrulesforaircraft operators,

PE428.771v01-00 2/3 RE\796786EN.doc

F. whereastherehasbeensubstantialgrowthinthelastdecadeinthenumberofrelatively small low-cost carriers flying to recognised holiday destinations and the number of passengers they carry,

G. whereas there have been 77 bankruptcies in the aviation sector in the last nine years, resulting in some instances in many thousands of passengers being stranded at their destinations and unable to use the return portion of their flight ticket,

1. Notes that the Commission has undertaken wide-ranging consultation of stakeholders on the question of airline bankruptcy;

2. Recalls that the Commission undertook a major study of the difficulties surrounding airline bankruptcy and its impact on passengers and forwarded its findings to Parliament in February 2009;

3. Notes the findings of that study and the range of options which it examines;

4. Recalls in this regard that there are a number of options which the Commission could pursue to strengthen the position of passengers of bankrupt airlines, including compulsory insurance for airlines, a voluntary insurance arrangement for passengers which airlines would be required to propose, and the establishment of a guarantee fund;

5. Calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of a legislative proposal and submit it, if it considers it appropriate, by 1 July 2010 which has as its specific objective the provision of compensation for passengers of airlines which go bankrupt and establishes financial and administrative arrangements, including the principle of mutual responsibility for passengers of all airlines flying in the same direction with available seats, which would ensure repatriation for passengers who are stranded at non-home airports in the event of airline bankruptcy; asks the Commission to propose, when reviewing Travel Package Directive 90/314/EC, an extension for repatriation or rerouting for the passengers concerned;

6. Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of extending such measures to airlines which have ceased operations and caused passengers similar inconvenience to that caused by airlines which go into bankruptcy;

7. Calls on the Commission to investigate the quick release of impounded aircraft by national regulatory bodies so that those aircraft can be used to bring stranded people home;

8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the parliaments and governments of the Member States.

Austria: Supreme Court decides on information duties with regard to hurricane hazard

Plaintiff and his fiancé wanted to go on vacation in late October 2005 and asked their travel agency for a destination of fair weather. The agency inter alia offered Yucatan/Mexico which they chose and booked a package tour for Oct. 16 to 30. When they left for Yucatan on Oct. 16, a tropical depression had developed in the Carribean which on Oct. 18 turned into hurricane Wilma. Plaintiff and his fiancé enjoyed their vacations until Oct. 19 when heavy wind came up and the hotel staff began to nail up windows. From Oct. 20 they were asked not to leave their room. The storm calmed down on Oct. 23 and left much of the neighbourhood of the hotel and most of the surrounding infrastrcuture destroyed. Plaintiff and his fiancé were flown home on Oct. 27.

They sued for refund of the full package price, compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment and some minor damages: the tour operator had been at fault because of failing to warn them from the upcoming hurricane. The tour operator argued the general hazard of hurricanes in the Carribean was a fact of general knowledge and hurricane Wilma had only developed after they had arrived.

Supreme Court upheld the decision of the court of appeal that plantiff was entitled to a partly refund of the package price (except for the first three days) as well as to compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment and further damages. Even though the general hazard of hurricanes in the Carribean indeed was a fact of general knowledge and the development of hurricane Wilam and its track not foreseeable at the time of booking nor at the time of departure, the tour operator should have informed about the duration of the hurricane season when hurricanes are more likely.

Although it was only ascertained that plaintiff had booked for fair weather, Supreme Court concluded that it was likely that he would have booked another destination if properly informed. Even though plaintiff and his fiancé neither would have enjoyed the particular package tour if information had been given they probably would have enjoyed another one of equal shape which therefore also constiuted loss of holiday enjoyment.

Supreme Court again opposed a conceptional formula to detetermine immaterial damages. Courts rather had to assess these damages due to the cicumstances of each individual case.

Judgement 4 Ob 130/09k of Sep. 29, 2009 is not published yet.

Austria: no liability for depressive mood following massive flight delay

Plaintiff had booked a package tour to Turkey together with his wife and their two children. Because of technical problems, the outward flight to Turkey was delayed for 26 hrs. Plaintiff claimed that because of a depressive psychosis he was suffering from, the fligth delay had caused a depressive mood which had prevented him from enjoying his holidays. Even his wife had not been able to enjoy the holidays as she had to look after him. Both of them had hardly left the hotel room.

Back home in Austria he sued for compensation for loss of holiday enjoyment and some minor expenses he had had becuase of the flight delay.

Upon defendant's appeal Regional Court (Landesgericht Innsbruck) in judgement 2 R 170/09b of June 19, 2009 for the most part dismissed the claim: plaintiff had not mentioned his disease when booking the package tour and same had not been offered as being specifically suitable for mentally ill persons. The depressive mood therfore could not be regarded an adequate consequence of the flight delay. Plaintiff also had failed to explain why he needed specific care.

Austria: hotel entitled to compensation for bitumen dirt

Defendant, a local community, had repaired a street in front of plaintiff's hotel. As the bitumen used was defective, particles came off and were brought into the hotel through the shoes of the guests and caused dirty spots on carpets and furniture.

Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) held that such dirt particles had to be regarded an "immission" due to sec. 364 par 2 Civil Code (ABGB) and constituted a claim for compensation, irrespective of fault. There was a sufficient causal connection even if hotel guests had acted carelessly.

Judgement 2 Ob 216/08s of March 25, 2009 avialable for download in German here>>.

Cancellation or Delay - some 'Highlights' of Advocate General Sharpston's Opinion

...

31. In the explanatory memorandum to its original proposal for a regulation, the Commission noted, at point 20, that ‘[c]ancellation by an operator … represents a refusal to supply the service for which it has contracted, except in exceptional circumstances beyond its responsibility, such as political instability, severe weather conditions, inadequate security and unexpected safety failures. For the passenger, cancellation in ordinary circumstances, for commercial reasons, causes unacceptable trouble and delay, particularly when not warned in advance.’ At point 23, it stated: ‘Although passengers suffer similar inconvenience and frustration from delays as from denied boarding or cancellation, there is a difference in that an operator is responsible for denied boarding and cancellation (unless for reasons beyond its responsibility) but not always for delays ...

32. It is not all that easy to discern the logic behind the distinction that the Commission was there drawing ...

...

35. In the course of the legislative process, however, there does not appear to have been a strong focus on that distinction, particularly once the levels of compensation had been reduced. In the text as finally adopted, it is difficult to deduce the criteria for distinguishing between ‘cancellation’ and ‘delay’.

...

38. The Regulation has the considerable merit of granting automatic compensation to passengers whose flights have been cancelled. However, as the Polish Government notes in its written observations, the distinction the Regulation introduces between cancellation and delay may lead to passengers who find themselves in objectively similar situations being treated differently.

...

47. In the IATA and ELFAA judgment, the Court stated unequivocally that the objective of Articles 5 (cancellation) and 6 (delay) of the Regulation is apparent from the first and second recitals in the preamble, according to which action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, inter alia, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers and should take account of the requirements of consumer protection in general, inasmuch as cancellation of, or long delay to, flights causes serious inconvenience to passengers.

...

51. However, regardless of the seriousness of the inconvenience caused, the Regulation provides that the cancellation of a flight automatically triggers a right to compensation (under Article 7) while a delay never does. As the order for reference in Sturgeon suggests and as the Commission indicated at the hearing, the Regulation therefore appears to be based on the assumption that a cancellation necessarily causes more inconvenience to passengers, and hence merits a stronger form of protection, than a ‘mere’ delay.

52. It is wholly unclear to me why this should be so ...

...

60. It seems to me that the underlying logic (again, against the background of enhanced consumer protection) must have been that, where the operator is not responsible for the inconvenience (whether caused by cancellation or long delay), he should not have to pay compensation; and that, conversely, where he is responsible, he should pay. Put another way, the criterion for compensation is not causation, but fault (broadly defined) on the part of the operator.

61. If that is right, it still does not explain why passengers suffering the inconvenience of a cancellation and passengers suffering the inconvenience of a long delay are treated differently. ...

62. The difference in treatment therefore appears to fall foul of the principle of equal treatment.

...

68. Factors that have been cited before the Court and in national case-law and legal writing as providing possible indications that a flight has been cancelled include: change of air carrier, change of aircraft, change of flight number, change of airport of departure or arrival, giving baggage back to passengers, new check-in for passengers, new seating assignment, allocation of all passengers to one or more other aircrafts, issuing new boarding passes, and the fact that the flight is described as ‘cancelled’ by the pilot (or other air carrier staff) or on the departures board.

69. Common sense suggests that all of these factors could be indications that a flight has been cancelled rather than merely delayed. The more factors that are present together, the more likely it becomes that there has indeed been a cancellation. By the same token, I do not think that any individual factor can be conclusive.

...

72. The Commission, supported at the hearing by counsel for Mr Böck and Ms Lepuschitz, for Condor, and for the Greek Government, suggests in its written observations that a change of flight number is a strong indication that a flight has been cancelled. I agree.

...

75. Since none of the factors cited can be conclusive on its own, national courts must assess the importance of each of them, when they are present in combination, in each individual case. That may lead to significant problems with legal certainty.

...

81. As a matter of common sense, time is obviously a factor in identifying whether a flight has been cancelled. If a number of the factors listed above are present in combination and/or the flight has been delayed for an inordinate period of time, that is a very strong indication that the flight has in fact been cancelled.

...

83. ... However, there are two difficulties with this approach. First, what is meant by ‘inordinate delay’? Second, is it permissible to interpret the Regulation in a way that classifies inordinate delay as de facto cancellation?

...

87. It seems to me impossible to identify, with any acceptable degree of precision, exactly what period of time must elapse before a delay become ‘inordinate’.

88. It would therefore be a matter for the national court, in each individual case, to evaluate the facts and reach a view – based on some mixture of national legal tradition, good sense and instinct rather than any precise Community legal norm – as to whether the delay in that instance had been ‘inordinate’ and should therefore be regarded as a de facto cancellation. ...

...

96. It seems to me that, in seeking to avoid Scylla (obvious discrimination against passengers whose flights are inordinately delayed when compared to passengers who obtain automatic compensation for their cancelled flight), one is immediately swept into Charybdis (legal uncertainty). ...

European Court of Justice: Advocate General Sharpston suggests reopen oral procedure on whether Articles of Regulation 261/2004 (EC) are invalid

In Cases C-402/07 -Sturgeon and C-432/07 - Böck both related to the destinction of cancellation and (extra) long delay according to Reg. 261/2004, Advocate General Sharpston in her opinion delivered this morning pointed out that in the course of the legislative process, regardless the importance there does not appear to have been a strong focus on that distinction, particularly once the levels of compensation had been reduced. In the text as finally adopted, it was difficult to deduce the criteria for distinguishing between ‘cancellation’ and ‘delay’.

She suggested that

• Before ruling on the questions posed by the Bundesgerichtshof and the first and second questions posed by the Handelsgericht Wien, the Court should reopen the oral procedure pursuant to Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure and invite submissions from the Member States, the Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council on whether Articles 5 and 7 and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, inasmuch as they draw a distinction between cancellation and delay (irrespective of length), are invalid in the light of the principle of equal treatment.

In regard to the excuse of extraordinary circumstances and technical problems she re-affirmed:

• Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.

Full text of opinion available here>>.