In Cymdek case (C-20/24) Polish court docket requested the CJEU to additional interpret provisions of Regulation 261/2004 on air passenger rights relating to proof of journey (reservation) and the idea of touring ‘freed from cost’. The case was selected March 6 and the CJEU interpreted related provisions of the Regulation in a passenger-friendly method.
Information and authorized questions
On this case, an organization CCC financed package deal excursions for a gaggle of passengers. CCC booked this package deal tour with a tour operator BBB. It included a flight between Spain and Poland, which was delayed by over 22 hours (working service: AAA). Two questions raised within the dispute adopted from passengers not being concerned with making the reservation nor paying for it. Article 3 of the Regulation 261/2004 defines the scope of its utility and requires that passengers ‘have a confirmed reservation on the flight involved’. This requires passengers to have a ticket or ‘different proof’ that the air service or tour operator accepted and registered the reservation, pursuant to Article 2(g). Additional, Article 3(3) excludes from the scope of utility such passengers who journey freed from cost or at a diminished fare. As proof of their reservation passengers have been presenting their boarding passes and the primary query answered by the CJEU requested whether or not this was ample as ‘different proof’. Second query addressed the difficulty of passengers touring ‘freed from cost’ if they didn’t pay for his or her flight, however the tour operator and the air service have been remunerated nonetheless.
Boarding go as proof of a reservation
The CJEU considers a boarding go as proof of a reservation, because it contains ticket or reservation quantity and confers on passengers ‘entitlement to move’, authorising them to take the flight (paras 23-24). It additionally depends on the truth that because the working air service admitted these passengers on board through check-in and allowed them to take the flight, they needed to have had a confirmed reservation for that flight (para 29). The boarding go can then show the existence of a reservation, even when it doesn’t comprise all info usually anticipated from it, e.g. arrival time (para 25).
Freed from cost air journey provided that made free by the working air service
The commonest interpretation of the exclusion from Article 3(3) Regulation 261/2004 concerned air carriers providing free (or at a diminished fare not out there to the general public) flights to passengers, exterior the frequent flyer programme advantages (paras 40-41). The CJEU confirms on this judgment that it’s only the working air service’s resolution to facilitate free (or at a diminished fare) journey to passengers that may stop passengers from claiming safety from Regulation 261/2004 (para 44). The truth that the tour operator on this case remunerated the working air service in accordance with market situations additional signifies that the flight was not ‘freed from cost’ (para 48). Additionally it is irrelevant whether or not passengers paid themselves to the tour operator, or whether or not, as on this case, the package deal tour was paid by a 3rd social gathering (para 49). The burden of proof {that a} passenger travelled freed from cost rests on the air service, as they might want to show their case is excluded from the applicability of Regulation 261/2004 (para 51).
The significance of this judgment is twofold. First, it clarifies the language of the earlier case Azurair and Others (C-146/20, C-188/20, C-196/20 and C-270/20), which implied {that a} proof of a reservation is just perceived as such if it incorporates a number of flight-related info. This particular interpretation would have made it comparatively straightforward for the airways to keep away from offering passengers with a ‘confirmed reservation’ by not offering a few of this info in written type to passengers, or offering it in varied paperwork. Additionally it is good to have a affirmation of the notion ‘freed from cost’ and its slender applicability. We could have anticipated that it was irrelevant whether or not passengers paid for his or her flight themselves, as in addition they didn’t require a contractual relationship with the working air service. Nevertheless, it’s good to learn that passengers is not going to lose their safety in the event that they journey on a reduced price foundation on account of preparations e.g. between their employers and tour operators, offered it isn’t the working air service that provides this (not publicly out there) deal.
