- whether the term 'cancellation', defined in Art 2 lit l of Regulation 261/2004/EC has to be interpreted as meaning only the failure of the flight to depart as planned or is it also to be interpreted as meaning any circumstance as a result of which the flight on which places are reserved takes off but fails to reach its destination, including the case in which the flight is forced to return to the airport of departure for technical reasons?
- whether the term 'further compensation' used in Art 12 has to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a cancellation, the national court may award compensation for damage, including non-material damage, for breach of a contract of carriage by air in accordance with rules established in national legislation and case-law on breach of contact or, on the contrary, must such compensation relate solely to appropriately substantiated expenses incurred by passengers and not adequately indemnified by the carrier in accordance with the requirements of Art 8 et seq even if such provisions have not been expressly relied upon or, lastly, are the two aforementioned definitions of the term further compensation compatible one with another?
"Sodalem esse societatis quae dedicetur ad exercitatio legis ut produceat iter peregrationemque"
Showing posts with label European Court of First Instance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Court of First Instance. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Air passengers' rights
Reference for a preliminary ruling before the ECJ (Case C-83/10 Rodríguez ea/Air France) from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Pontevedra (Spain) regarding the questions,
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Judgment by CFI (ECJ) re Ryanair v Commission and AEA
Case T-196/04 (Eighth Chamber, extended composition)
Judgment as of Dec 17, 2008
State aid regarding an agreements entered into by the Walloon Region and the Brussels South Charleroi airport with the claimant
Application of the private investor in a market economy test according to Art 87 ECT
The applicant, Ryanair Ltd, is Europe’s original and largest low fares airline. It has pioneered in Europe the ‘low cost’ business model, which involves minimising costs and maximising efficiency in all areas of its business so as to offer the lowest fares in every market and thereby attract high passenger volumes.
At the beginning of November 2001 Ryanair entered into two separate agreements (‘the agreements at issue’), one with the Walloon Region, the owner of Charleroi Airport, the other with Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA): [para 5 et seq]
On 12 February 2004, having analysed the comments of the interested parties and of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Commission adopted Decision 2004/393/EC concerning advantages granted by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair in connection with its establishment at Charleroi (OJ 2004 L 137, p. 1) [para 12]
The Commission concluded that ‘the advantages granted to Ryanair by the Walloon Region and by BSCA are State aid according to Art 87 para 1 ECT. The Commission essentially concludes that the aid granted by the Walloon Region is incompatible with the common market and furthermore that the Commission considers that aid for the opening of new routes, where the amount does not exceed 50% of the start-up costs and the duration is less than five years, is compatible with the common market. [para 17 et seqq]
The Court of First Instance of the European Communities annuled the Commission Decision in dispute 2004/393/EC of Feb 12, 2004 on the grounds, that
While it is clearly necessary, when the State acts as an undertaking operating as a private investor, to analyse its conduct by reference to the private investor principle, application of that principle must be excluded in the event that the State acts as a public authority. [para 85]
It must be held that the actions of the Walloon Region were economic activities. The fixing of the amount of landing charges and the accompanying indemnity is an activity directly connected with the management of airport infrastructure, which is an economic activity. [para 88]
In light of all of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the Commission’s refusal to examine together the advantages granted by the Walloon Region and by BSCA and to apply the private investor principle to the measures adopted by the Walloon Region in spite of the economic links binding those two entities is vitiated by an error in law. [para 102]
Consequently, in light of the Commission’s error of law, the claims of the applicant must be upheld and the contested decision must be annulled; there is no need to examine the arguments in support of the first plea in law. [para 105]
The Judgment ist available in full text >>here<< and several languages: just change the 2 letters after "lang=" within the link
Judgment as of Dec 17, 2008
State aid regarding an agreements entered into by the Walloon Region and the Brussels South Charleroi airport with the claimant
Application of the private investor in a market economy test according to Art 87 ECT
The applicant, Ryanair Ltd, is Europe’s original and largest low fares airline. It has pioneered in Europe the ‘low cost’ business model, which involves minimising costs and maximising efficiency in all areas of its business so as to offer the lowest fares in every market and thereby attract high passenger volumes.
At the beginning of November 2001 Ryanair entered into two separate agreements (‘the agreements at issue’), one with the Walloon Region, the owner of Charleroi Airport, the other with Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA): [para 5 et seq]
- Granting Ryanair a reduction of some 50% as compared with the regulatory level of landing charges and undertook to compensate Ryanair for any loss of profit arising directly or indirectly from any change by decree or regulation of airport charges or opening hours;
- Undertaking to base between two and four aircraft at Charleroi Airport and to operate, over a fifteen-year period, at least three rotations a day per aircraf and also undertaking, in the event of its ‘substantial withdrawal’ from the airport, to reimburse all or part of the payments made by BSCA
On 12 February 2004, having analysed the comments of the interested parties and of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Commission adopted Decision 2004/393/EC concerning advantages granted by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair in connection with its establishment at Charleroi (OJ 2004 L 137, p. 1) [para 12]
The Commission concluded that ‘the advantages granted to Ryanair by the Walloon Region and by BSCA are State aid according to Art 87 para 1 ECT. The Commission essentially concludes that the aid granted by the Walloon Region is incompatible with the common market and furthermore that the Commission considers that aid for the opening of new routes, where the amount does not exceed 50% of the start-up costs and the duration is less than five years, is compatible with the common market. [para 17 et seqq]
The Court of First Instance of the European Communities annuled the Commission Decision in dispute 2004/393/EC of Feb 12, 2004 on the grounds, that
While it is clearly necessary, when the State acts as an undertaking operating as a private investor, to analyse its conduct by reference to the private investor principle, application of that principle must be excluded in the event that the State acts as a public authority. [para 85]
It must be held that the actions of the Walloon Region were economic activities. The fixing of the amount of landing charges and the accompanying indemnity is an activity directly connected with the management of airport infrastructure, which is an economic activity. [para 88]
In light of all of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the Commission’s refusal to examine together the advantages granted by the Walloon Region and by BSCA and to apply the private investor principle to the measures adopted by the Walloon Region in spite of the economic links binding those two entities is vitiated by an error in law. [para 102]
Consequently, in light of the Commission’s error of law, the claims of the applicant must be upheld and the contested decision must be annulled; there is no need to examine the arguments in support of the first plea in law. [para 105]
The Judgment ist available in full text >>here<< and several languages: just change the 2 letters after "lang=" within the link
Friday, September 26, 2008
European Court of First Instance: no damages granted after annulment of the Commission’s decision to interdict acquistion of First Choice by MyTravel
On 29 April 1999, the United Kingdom travel company Airtours (now renamed into MyTravel Group) announced its intention to acquire the whole of the issued share capital of First Choice, one of its competitors in the United Kingdom, on the stock market. The Commission declared the merger incompatible with the common market on the ground that it would have led to a collective dominant position on the United Kingdom short-haul foreign package holiday market.
Airtours brought proceedings before the Court of First Instance which by judgment of 6 June 2002 annulled the decision, holding that the Commission had not shown to the requisite degree that negative effects on competition would arise by virtue of the merger.
Following that judgment, MyTravel Group brought an action before the Court of First Instance claiming damages for the loss it claimed to have suffered by reason of the unlawfulness vitiating the review procedure undertaken by the Commission of the compatibility of the proposed acquisition of the applicant’s competitor with the common market.
The Court of First Instance held, that for the non-contractual liability of the Community to arise there must be unlawful conduct by its institutions amounting to a manifest and grave disregard for the limits on their discretion. the complexity of the situations to be regulated in the control of mergers, the difficulties of application connected with the time constraints imposed on the administration in that regard and the margin of discretion available to the Commission must be taken into account in analysing whether a sufficiently serious breach on the Commission’s part may have arisen.
Having regard to those considerations, the Court of First Instance rules that the Commission did not commit a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law in analysing the Airtours/First Choice merger in light of the criteria relating to the creation of a collective dominant position.
Source: Court of First Instance press release>>.
Airtours brought proceedings before the Court of First Instance which by judgment of 6 June 2002 annulled the decision, holding that the Commission had not shown to the requisite degree that negative effects on competition would arise by virtue of the merger.
Following that judgment, MyTravel Group brought an action before the Court of First Instance claiming damages for the loss it claimed to have suffered by reason of the unlawfulness vitiating the review procedure undertaken by the Commission of the compatibility of the proposed acquisition of the applicant’s competitor with the common market.
The Court of First Instance held, that for the non-contractual liability of the Community to arise there must be unlawful conduct by its institutions amounting to a manifest and grave disregard for the limits on their discretion. the complexity of the situations to be regulated in the control of mergers, the difficulties of application connected with the time constraints imposed on the administration in that regard and the margin of discretion available to the Commission must be taken into account in analysing whether a sufficiently serious breach on the Commission’s part may have arisen.
Having regard to those considerations, the Court of First Instance rules that the Commission did not commit a sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law in analysing the Airtours/First Choice merger in light of the criteria relating to the creation of a collective dominant position.
Source: Court of First Instance press release>>.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)