Passenger Rights

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
European Union flag

Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004

Title: Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on common rules for compensation and support services for passengers in the event of denied boarding and in the event of flight cancellation or long delay and repealing the Regulation (EEC) No. 295/91
Designation:
(not official) 		Passenger Rights Regulation
Scope: EEA
Legal matter: Travel law
Basis: Article 79 Paragraph (2) of the EC Treaty
Date of issue: February 11, 2004
Come into effect: February 17, 2005
Replaces: Regulation (EEG) 295/91
Reference: OJ L46 of February 17, 2004, pp. 1-8
Full text Consolidated version (not official)
basic version
Regulation has entered into force and is applicable.
Please note the information on the current version of legal acts of the European Union !

As air passenger rights in one designated travel law and consumer protection , the rights of air travelers .

They complement the general civil rights claims of passengers and serve primarily to oblige airlines to compensate for flight irregularities. Air passenger rights in the European legal area are largely standardized in the Air Passenger Rights Ordinance , internationally also by the Montreal Convention .

History of the EU Air Passenger Rights Regulation

On February 11, 2004, the European Parliament and Council passed the current legal act ( Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 or Passenger Rights Regulation) . The regulation then came into force on February 17, 2005. The European Court of Justice confirmed its validity and conformity with primary law on January 10, 2006 with a ruling in the preliminary ruling procedure on case C-344/04. The plaintiffs in the British main proceedings were the international airline association IATA and the association of European low-cost airlines ELFAA .

The ordinance has remained unchanged since then. In spring 2013 , the European Commission presented a proposal to revise the Air Passenger Rights Regulation in order to integrate parts of the case law of the ECJ into the regulation. However, the Council of the European Union has not reached an agreement since then.

In order to standardize the interpretation of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation across the Union, the EU Commission published guidelines for the application of the provision in 2016. Above all, they summarize previous judgment practice.

As part of the COVID-19 pandemic , there were increasing reports of airlines and tour operators who, despite a cancellation, did not refund the flight price within the prescribed time (7 days). The EU then made it clear again in an interpretative guideline that this is illegal.

scope of application

The Passenger Rights Regulation applies to all flights that are taken in the EU . The regulation also applies to flights that are operated by an airline based in the EU, in other EEA member states such as Iceland and Norway or in Switzerland and have an airport in the EU as their destination. Also, the air passenger rights apply after the exit of Britain from the EU during the transition period until the end of 2020 in the United Kingdom on first. For the time after that, the British government has announced that it will allow the protection standard of the EU Passenger Rights Regulation to continue to apply until further notice.

However, the regulations do not apply to flights from third countries with airlines registered in third countries to the EU. The agreement is suspended for Gibraltar Airport .

On flights outside the EU, the travel law of the relevant non-European legal systems may be considered. Compared to the Passenger Rights Regulation, however, these only provide a lower level of protection for passengers.

Types of Legally Relevant Flight Irregularities

Air travelers' claims to benefits in kind and in cash are standardized in Art. 6 ff. Of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation for cases of above-average flight irregularities. Which includes

Beneficiaries

The opponents of the passenger claims are airlines that operate the flights concerned. The Passenger Rights Regulation covers scheduled flights and charter flights (including cheap flights ) without distinction .

According to Art. 3 ff. Of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, passengers always have air passenger rights vis-à-vis the operating airline. The BGH made it clear that this is the relevant opponent even if another airline offered a flight to a passenger and concluded a contract of carriage with him. Above all, this has an impact on the demands on code-sharing flights. However, occurs only a particular airline in relation to the passenger in appearance, this shall apply even if another airline under an as an executive and company committed, wet-lease -agreement provides aircraft and crew. The ECJ also confirmed this.

In the case of flights as part of package tours (Directive 90/314 / EEC), claims are not to be made against the tour operator, but also against the operating airline. Of course, something else applies to the claim to a proportionate reimbursement of the package tour price due to a lack of travel in the form of the flight irregularity. According to § 651m BGB , the traveler is entitled to this against his tour operator. However, in accordance with Art. 12 Passenger Rights Regulation, the flat-rate compensation from Art. 7 can be offset against the corresponding repayment obligation.

Expectations

Simplified representation of passenger rights ( decision tree )

In the event of denied boarding, cancellation or delay, the scope of the claims is graded according to the flight distance. However, the actual flight route is not taken into account. Instead, the distance is determined using the great circle method.

In order for a passenger to be entitled to air passenger rights, they must arrive at check-in on schedule and in good time .

Denied boarding rights

In the event of denied boarding - for example due to overbooking - the passenger is entitled to:

  • the reimbursement of the ticket price ,
  • the earliest possible free return flight to the place of departure,
  • the earliest possible transport to the destination or
  • the transport to the destination on the desired date (if there are free places).

The operating airline also has to make a flat-rate compensation payment (Art. 7 Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004) of:

  • 250 € for a flight distance of up to 1,500 km,
  • € 400 for a route within the EU of more than 1,500 km and for all other routes of a distance between 1,500 and 3,500 km
  • 600 € for flights of more than 3,500 km with origin or destination outside the EU.

If an alternative flight is offered that arrives at the destination no later than two, three or four hours (depending on the distance mentioned above) compared to the planned flight, only 50% of the compensation is due.

People with restricted mobility and their companions as well as unaccompanied children have a preferential right to vacant places.

Rights in the event of cancellation

The passenger can choose to:

  • Reimbursement of the ticket price,
  • a free return flight to the place of departure or
  • other transport to the destination.

In addition, the airline has to pay a lump sum compensation (compensation, Art. 5 Para. 1 c in conjunction with Art. 7 Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004):

  • 250 € for a flight distance of up to 1,500 km,
  • € 400 for a route within the EU of more than 1,500 km and for all other routes of a distance between 1,500 and 3,500 km
  • 600 € for a flight distance of more than 3,500 km with origin or destination outside the EU.

It is particularly advantageous for travelers that they do not have to prove actual damage, as this is a flat-rate compensation for inconvenience. A passenger is only entitled to compensation payments if

  • the airline has not notified the passenger no later than 14 days before the scheduled departure
  • and the passenger is instead informed of the cancellation between two weeks and seven days before the scheduled departure time, but does not receive an offer of re-routing that enables them to depart no more than two hours before the scheduled departure time and their final destination at most four hours after the scheduled arrival time
  • or the passenger is not informed of the cancellation until less than seven days before the scheduled departure time and does not receive an offer of re-routing that enables him to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled departure time and the final destination no later than two hours after the to achieve the scheduled arrival time.

If an alternative flight is offered that arrives at the destination no later than two, three or four hours (depending on the distance mentioned above) compared to the planned flight, he is only entitled to 50% of the compensation.

In addition, there is no entitlement to flat-rate compensation where extraordinary circumstances cause the flight irregularity and an air carrier cannot reasonably carry out the flight in good time (see section Extraordinary Circumstances ).

Rights in the event of early departure

With its ruling of June 9, 2015, the BGH made it clear that moving the flight forward by several hours justifies a claim for damages by travelers. The court takes the view that the airline cancels the flight if a planned flight is brought forward by more than just a slight amount - combined with the offer to conclude a different contract of carriage.

Delayed departure rights

In the event of delayed transport as a result of a cancellation or flight delay, the passenger must be provided with various benefits in kind. This includes meals , drinks , two free phone calls or faxes or telexes or e-mails . If urgently necessary, for example if the actual departure is not possible until the following day, the passenger is entitled to hotel accommodation including the transfer. However, all these rights only arise in the event of a departure delay of:

  • over 2 hours for a flight distance less than or equal to 1,500 km,
  • over 3 hours for a further distance within the EU or less than or equal to 3,500 km and
  • over 4 hours for flights outside the EU greater than 3,500 km.

In the event of a departure delay of more than five hours (including a connecting flight), passengers can cancel the trip and are then entitled to (partial) reimbursement of the ticket price within seven days and, if applicable, a free return flight to the starting point. Furthermore, passengers can withdraw from their flight free of charge, whereby the full ticket price must be reimbursed by the airline and no cancellation fees may be charged.

In special cases, passengers are even allowed to book a replacement flight on their own initiative and to reclaim the costs incurred from the airline. The prerequisite for this is that the tour operator has failed to inform the travelers of their obligation to report defects when booking ; The BGH made this clear in its judgment of July 3, 2018.

Late arrival rights

Since the decision of the ECJ of November 19, 2009 in the joined cases Sturgeon / Condor and Böck and Lepuschitz / Air France, passengers are entitled to the same compensation as in the case of a cancellation if they are delayed by more than three hours (regardless of the distance ).

The graduation of compensation in the event of a delay of more than three hours at the destination corresponds to that in the event of flight cancellations: Depending on the route, a passenger is entitled to a compensation payment of € 250, € 400 or € 600 (see section on cancellations above ). According to a decision of the ECJ of September 4, 2014, the time when the aircraft touched down at the destination is not decisive for the calculation of the delay, but the time at which the doors were opened.

It depends on the arrival at the final destination. A claim also exists if the feeder flight is less delayed and there is a delay of more than three hours because a passenger misses his connecting flight. It remained open at first whether a right to compensation only exists if the connecting flight within the EU is missed. The BGH initially affirmed this in a ruling in 2012. However, when the ECJ was confronted with the question for the first time in 2018, the court ruled in favor of the passengers that they also have a claim for compensation if the missed connecting flight takes off outside the EU. With the judgment of July 11, 2019, the court went even further and affirmed a compensation claim even where an irregularity only occurs on a route outside the EU on a multi-unit flight connection starting in the EU, which leads to a delay of more than three hours at the final destination .

In addition, the ECJ made it clear in 2019 that a compensation claim for missed connecting flights does not require the same airline to carry out the transport on several sections. It was previously unclear whether the responsibility of different airlines for different sections of the route precludes compensation if the feeder flight is delayed by less than three hours and only missing a connection causes a considerable overall delay at the final destination. According to the new case law, the compensation claim in the case of missed connecting flights only requires that the multi-link connection has been booked uniformly in order to establish an obligation of the operating airline of the feeder.

Further rights

In all care measures, particular attention must be paid to the needs of people with restricted mobility and their companions, as well as the needs of unaccompanied children (Art. 11 Passenger Rights Regulation).

The passenger must be upgraded in the class of carriage free of charge. A downgrade entitles the person concerned to a refund of the ticket price in accordance with Art. 10 Passenger Rights Regulation in the amount of 30% on short-haul routes, 50% on medium-haul routes and 75% on long-haul routes.

The compensation lump sums of the Passenger Rights Regulation do not affect further claims for damages (Art. 12 Passenger Rights Regulation). Nevertheless, the Montreal Convention limits the amount of such claims to up to 4150 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). In addition, the airline can offset the flat rate compensation owed against further claims for damages, provided that these are only intended to compensate for inconvenience caused by the flight irregularity.

Such compensation claims can also be considered beyond the scope of the Air Passenger Rights Regulation, but require quantifiability and verifiability of the damage within the framework of the general law of obligations. Claims for compensation under the law of obligations also differ from those of the Passenger Rights Regulation in that they are directed against the contracting company and not against the airline operating the vehicle. If the claims are not satisfied, legal recourse is open.

Modalities of benefits in cash and in kind

Must be paid cash benefits in cash , by bank transfer , by check or - with written consent of the passenger - in the form of travel vouchers within seven days from the date of Flugunregelmäßigkeit (Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a Regulation (EC) No... . 261/2004).

For the calculation of the distance relevant for the amount of compensation, the last destination that is reached with a delay due to the flight irregularity is assumed. However, only routes and transfer points that were booked with the same airline in a single flight ticket are calculated. If several different airlines booked independently of each other are involved in an overall flight, each flight route of a company is considered separately.

If alternative airports are offered, the airline must bear the cost of the transfer to the original destination airport or a destination agreed with the customer.

Exceptional circumstances

Like the Montreal Convention , Article 5 (3) of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 restricts obligations for operating airlines in cases in which an incident is due to exceptional circumstances and the flight irregularity cannot be avoided even with all reasonable measures.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in the case Wallentin-Hermann against Alitalia circumstances can only be qualified as "exceptional" if they relate to an event which is not part of the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned. Due to its nature or cause, the event must be uncontrollable for the air carrier. The ECJ has since confirmed this in the rulings on the related cases Sturgeon v Condor and Böck and Lepuschitz v Air France .

Corresponding circumstances can arise in particular in the event of political instability, security-endangering weather conditions, unexpected deficiencies in air traffic control, other security risks and strikes. In the case of "wild strikes" in the form of widespread sick leave, the ECJ decided in 2018 that this was not an exceptional circumstance. Incidentally, with regard to industrial action, it is still controversial to what extent a strike is considered a manageable incident for the airline if it provokes a stoppage due to a lack of willingness to negotiate.

On the other hand, German courts have now established that so-called unexpected defects do not fall under the exception in the regulation, because every defect can occur at some point and is therefore considered to be foreseeable . The ECJ also affirmed this in a ruling, recognizing that airlines have to pay compensation to passengers even if a flight is canceled due to unexpected technical problems, as long as these are not based on sabotage, undetected design errors or terrorist attacks. In the meantime, the ECJ has assumed exceptional circumstances where a technical defect is due to damage from external objects - for example, if a screw on the runway causes a crack in the aircraft tire.

According to the Federal Court of Justice , however, a bird strike can be classified as an extraordinary event. Defense against birds is ultimately the responsibility of the airport operator and not the airline and is therefore beyond their sphere of influence. However, it should be checked in each individual case whether the airline has also done everything reasonable to avert delays or cancellations due to bird strikes. In the meantime, the ECJ also confirmed with its decision of May 4, 2017 that bird strikes are to be regarded as extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5 (3) of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. A contrary judgment of the KG Berlin from 2009 should therefore have become obsolete.

It should also be noted that, even if exceptional circumstances are discovered, a claim for compensation can exceptionally be considered where faster transport would still have been possible with reasonable measures. The Koenigs Wusterhausen District Court decided that it would have been reasonable for a “ low-cost airline ” taking off and landing at Berlin-Schönefeld Airport to use a replacement aircraft.

On January 31, 2013, the ECJ also ruled that an airline must also take care of passengers whose flight was canceled due to exceptional circumstances such as the closure of the airspace after the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano . According to the court, EU law does not have any time or financial restrictions on the obligation to look after passengers through accommodation , meals and refreshments .

Enforcement of claims

Different estimates assume that legitimate claims worth 200–700 million euros are not asserted in Germany every year. A central reason for this is that for many, independent enforcement in relation to the possible amounts of compensation seems too risky and too costly. This is why companies have now established themselves on the market that offer injured passengers support in enforcing passenger rights through litigation financing or factoring . With these service providers, a structural distinction must be made between debt collection portals and so-called instant indemnifiers (see below). In the case of individual airlines that are not based in the EU, in particular from the North African region, the enforcement of claims fails because the airlines refuse to pay even in the case of legally binding court judgments and the attachment of accounts in the respective country of origin of the airline is not legally enforceable.

Independent enforcement by the passenger

The assertion of claims is based on the respective national civil procedure law . Which is relevant is largely determined by the country of the departure and arrival airport of the flight concerned. The passenger has the choice at which of these locations to bring the action. Even if an airline based outside the EU operates the flight in question, the place of jurisdiction is determined by the place of performance, i.e. the place of departure or arrival (see Section 29 (1) ZPO).

In Germany, a passenger can independently claim his / her claims under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 against his airline. This applies to both extrajudicial and judicial steps for enforcement, as a procedure takes place before the respective district court due to the low amounts in dispute , before which there is no legal requirement (cf. § 78 ZPO). A lawyer can still be called in as an option.

For the out-of-court assertion it is advisable to use a sample letter. It does happen, however, that airlines do not comply with such requests by private individuals despite the obligation to pay compensation. In these cases, the passenger is initially open to arbitration bodies, before which, however, often only settlements are obtained and no comprehensive compensation.

If a passenger decides to enforce his claim in court, he can not only enforce his claim for compensation himself, but also demand compensation for his legal costs at the same time . Before asserting his claims in court, however, he must first request the respective airline in writing, setting a deadline, since otherwise he will have to bear the legal costs in the event of acknowledgment . Conversely, the passenger assumes the risk of litigation in the event of independent judicial enforcement: he or she has to make advance payments for the court fees and, in the event of dismissal, to pay the other side's lawyer fees.

Enforcement through passenger rights portals (debt collection portals)

Debt collection services help passengers to enforce their claims against airlines by collecting the claims and paying the costs of the proceedings. Your remuneration for this service is usually regulated by a pro-rata success fee in the compensation payments made. In some cases, an annual insurance fee is charged as an alternative, and commission-free enforcement is offered if necessary.

This gives a passenger the opportunity to enforce his / her passenger rights without incurring any additional effort and without having to bear the litigation risk. When using debt collection portals, compensation will only be paid out once the airline has paid the service provider. Collection services also allow passengers to check their claims in advance via their web platforms.

Immediate redeemer

Since debt collection portals need several weeks to months to pay, depending on the difficulty of enforcing passenger rights, a number of instant indemnifiers have also positioned themselves on the market. On their web platforms, they allow passengers to check their entitlement to compensation in advance using a form. On this basis, they offer passengers the option of buying their claims against a direct payment.

For this purpose, however, the instant indemnifiers typically charge a higher margin of the nominal value of a purchased claim as a service fee than the debt collection portals. Some instant indemnifiers, however, now pay as much as debt collection services. This is made possible by low processing costs, as claims are purchased and enforced in a highly automated manner using legal technology .

Complaints Office

Germany

In Germany, the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) is the competent authority for the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. Complaint forms and further information are also available from the Citizens Service of the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt. However, the LBA only takes care of commercial supervision. The LBA does not arbitrate civil law claims between the passenger and the airline (but see below in the chapter on arbitration in air traffic ).

For trips from November 1, 2013, passengers can contact the Arbitration Board for Public Transport (SOEP) ; however, the airline must first have been contacted. The arbitration board only helps private individuals with claims between 10 and 5,000 euros. It should be noted that the airlines are registered members of the SOEP. If the airline is based in another EU country, you can also contact the European Consumer Center.

Austria

In Austria, the Agency for Passenger and Passenger Rights (apf), a service point of the Federal Ministry for Climate Protection, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology (BMK), is responsible for accepting complaints .

Switzerland

In Switzerland, the service point responsible for passenger rights is the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA). The FOCA cannot enforce the passenger's entitlement to compensation. However, there is a possibility that the airline will make a payment as part of the procedure, as the FOCA can impose a fine on the airline. The prerequisite is that the FOCA also comes to the conclusion that a payment is due.

Arbitration in aviation

This article or paragraph presents the situation in Germany . Help us to describe the situation in other countries.

Germany

On March 21, 2013, the German Bundestag passed the law on arbitration in air traffic , which introduces an arbitration procedure for disputes between passengers and air transport companies in Germany (by amending or supplementing Sections 57 et seq. Of the German Aviation Act (LuftVG)).

Air transport companies are obliged to set up an arbitration board or to join one (§ 57 LuftVG new version). According to the law, the airlines are free to choose a body organized under private law as the arbitration board. Otherwise they will be subjected to an official arbitration at the Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) (§ 57a LuftVG new version).

The procedure is initially free of charge for passengers (only in the event of improper use can a reimbursement of costs also be demanded from the passenger in accordance with Section 57 (4) sentence 2 LuftVG new version or Section 57a (3) sentence 2 LuftVG new version). Two years after the start of the arbitration, the ministry is to review the previous procedure and, if necessary, introduce a small fee.

In § 57b LuftVG it is stipulated that only claims from consumers (within the meaning of § 13 BGB ) and in a claim amount of max. 5,000 euros are affected. Thus z. B. Incidents from business trips cannot be arbitrated according to this system. In § 57b LuftVG new version, further requirements are set out when an arbitration is permitted and when not. For this purpose, the Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ) had also issued the regulation pursuant to Section 57c of the Aviation Act on mediation in air traffic (Luftverkehrsschlichtungverordnung - LuftSchlichtV) .

The new regulations have been binding since November 1, 2013.

During the legislative process, it was criticized, among other things, that the new regulation does not provide for a uniform body for all airlines and that each airline is free to choose its own arbitration body.

Montreal Convention

Regulatory areas

Luggage damage

Compensation can only be asserted against the operating airlines. In addition to the contracting company, action can also be taken against the operating airline (code sharing). The amount is limited to up to 1,131 SDRs (changed from 1,000 to 1,131 SDRs as a result of amendments in accordance with Art. 25 MT in 2009). If the claims are not satisfied, legal recourse is open.

Damage to checked-in baggage must be reported in writing within seven days and, in the case of delayed baggage, within 21 days (note: deadline!) After arrival.

Physical injury during the flight

There is no- fault liability up to a maximum amount of 113,100 special drawing rights per passenger (note: increase in the maximum liability limit from 100,000 to 113,100 SDRs in 2009 according to Art. 24 MT). The air carrier has unlimited liability for any damage beyond this. The air carrier can only avoid unlimited liability if he can prove that his conduct did not contribute to the occurrence of the damage (Art. 17 Para. 1 and Art. 21 MT).

Compensation can only be asserted against contractual airlines. In addition to the contracting company, action can also be taken against the operating airline (code sharing). There is a right to immediate financial needs being met. If the claims are not satisfied, legal recourse is open.

National legal systems

Germany

According to national German law, air passenger rights are regulated in the Aviation Act (LuftVG).

However, passenger rights under international treaties (e.g. under the Montreal Convention) or EU law have priority.

Canada

In 2019 the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) issued comprehensive guidelines for the protection of passenger rights: the so-called Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR). The revised Canadian regulation standardizes the rights and obligations of airlines and passengers on flights to, from and to Canada in the event of flight irregularities such as cancellations or denied boarding. The APPR are partly based on the example of the EU Passenger Rights Regulation and accordingly provide for flat-rate compensation payments for flight delays or cancellations. A striking difference to the European legal situation, however, is that airlines are released from the obligation to compensate even in the case of normal operational disruptions such as technical defects if the delay or cancellation is indicated for safety reasons.

See also

Web links

literature

Comments on the Air Passenger Rights Regulation (chronological)
Other literature (alphabetical)
  • Hans-Georg Bollweg: Passenger rights in land and air traffic , p. 59 ff., In: Deutscher Verkehrsgerichtstag (Hrsg.), Proceedings for the 48th German Traffic Court Day, Cologne 2010, publisher: Luchterhand, ISBN 978-3-472-07849- 4 .
  • Hans-Georg Bollweg: Arbitration in Air Traffic , New Journal for Traffic Law (NZV) 2015, 361
  • Ernst Führich: The passenger rights of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 in practice . In: MDR . Volume 61, Issue 7, 2007, special issue, pp. 1–21 (incl. Text Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 ).
  • Krijn Haak: Liability in passenger transport - legal developments in the field of international passenger transport , transpr 2009, 162 [magazine "Transportrecht"].
  • Raphael v. Heereman: Presentation on the German Traffic Court Conference on Regulation EC No. 261/2004 … , p. 69 ff., In: German Traffic Court Conference (Ed.), Proceedings for the 48th German Traffic Court Conference, Cologne 2010, Publisher: Luchterhand, ISBN 978-3- 472-07849-4 .
  • Holger Hopperdietzel: Started on time but arrived late - The case law on flights with stopovers , Reiserecht aktuell (RRa) 2012, 210.
  • Edgar Isermann / Christof: Enforcement bodies and arbitration bodies for air passenger rights in Europe , Reiserecht aktuell (RRa) 2010, 207.
  • Jens Karsten / Christian Schuster-Wolf: Developments in EU Passenger Law 2011–2012 - Part I , In: Consumer and Law (VuR) 2012, 463 (PDF) [2] (PDF; 229 kB); ... - Part II , VuR 2013, 6.
  • Stephan Keiler: Right and cheap when flying , European Law Reporter (ELR) 2006, 266–272 (PDF; 121 kB).
  • Stephan Keiler: The Air Passenger Rights Regulation before the ECJ - on cheap, return and replacement as well as overbooked, original and delayed flights , Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht (ZVR) 2009, 236–241 (PDF; 160 kB).
  • Stephan Keiler: Courage to gap - the air passenger rights regulation for interpretation and review before the ECJ , Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht (ZVR) 2011, 228–239 (PDF; 180 kB).
  • Stephan Keiler: The proposal for an amendment to the Passenger Rights Regulation - An analysis from a scientific point of view , Reiserecht aktuell (RRa) 2013, 163-173 .
  • Stephan Keiler: Arrived or not yet? The relevant point in time for calculating the "arrival delay" in the context of a flight transport contract - at the same time a comment on ECJ case C-452/13 (Germanwings / Henning) , Journal for Private Law of the European Union (GPR) 2014, 258-268 .
  • Silvia Schattenkirchner: Passenger rights in land and air traffic , p. 92 ff., In: German Traffic Court (Ed.), Proceedings for the 48th German Traffic Court, Cologne 2010, publisher: Luchterhand, ISBN 978-3-472-07849-4 .
  • Ronald Schmid / Holger Hopperdietzel: Passenger Rights - A Snapshot , NJW 2010, 1905.
  • Christian Schuster-Wolf: Current problems with the application of the Passenger Rights Regulation 261/2004 / EC and perspectives for the planned reform from the passenger's point of view , Journal for European Company and Consumer Law (euvr) 2012, 149.
  • Christian Schuster-Wolf, The interpretation of the passenger rights regulation by the ECJ , magazine for consumer law 2015, 114–118.
  • Stefanie Sendmeyer: Every year again: European air passenger rights in snow chaos , NJW 2011, 808.
  • Hartwig Sprau: in Palandt , Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Commentary on the BGB with ancillary laws , before Section 631 BGB, marginal number 17 b, 70th edition, Munich 2011, Verlag CH Beck, ISBN 978-3-406-61000-4 .
  • Klaus Tonner : The EU Air Passenger Rights Regulation and the Montreal Convention , Consumers and Law (VuR) 2011, 203 (PDF) [3] (PDF; 155 kB).

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c Air passenger rights. December 17, 2014, accessed November 24, 2014 .
  2. ↑ a b c d e Passenger Rights Regulation. In: Official Journal of the European Union. European Union , February 17, 2004, accessed June 29, 2018 .
  3. ↑ Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 on common rules for compensation and support services for passengers in the event of denied boarding and for the cancellation or long delay of flights and the regulation ( EC) No. 2027/97 on the liability of air carriers for the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, COM (2013) 130 final.
  4. ↑ See in detail: Keiler , The proposal for an amendment to the Air Passenger Rights Regulation - An analysis from a scientific point of view, Reiserecht aktuell (RRa) 2013, 163–173.
  5. ↑ Status report of the Council from May 19, 2015
  6. ↑ a b European Commission: Guidelines for the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. June 10, 2016, accessed July 18, 2018 .
  7. ↑ European Commission: Interpretative guidelines for the EU regulations on passenger rights against the background of the developing situation in connection with Covid-19. March 18, 2020, accessed May 3, 2020 .
  8. ↑ Bye bye Britain: What will happen after Brexit? - North Bavarian courier. In: Norbayerischer Kurier. Retrieved February 28, 2020 .
  9. ↑ Brexit: No impact on air travelers. In: ORF. January 30, 2020, accessed February 28, 2020 .
  10. ↑ a b c d Dr. Philipp P. Roeckl: 8 rights in the event of flight delay: what passengers are entitled to. In: Qamqam's lawyer blog. Retrieved on May 27, 2019 (German).
  11. ↑ BGH, judgment of November 26, 2009, Az .: Xa ZR 132/08
  12. ↑ Federal Court of Justice: BGH, judgment of November 26, 2009, Az .: Xa ZR 132/08. Retrieved February 6, 2018 .
  13. ↑ LTO: ECJ, judgment of April 7, 2018, Az .: C-523/17 . In: Legal Tribune Online . ( lto.de [accessed on July 22, 2018]).
  14. ↑ Tim Schlun: BGH: flight relocation justifies compensation. Schlun & Elseven Rechtsanwälte, June 24, 2015, accessed on July 15, 2015 .
  15. ↑ BGH, judgment of July 3, 2018, Az .: X ZR 96/17 - openJur. Retrieved December 20, 2018 .
  16. ↑ ECJ: ECJ, judgment of November 19, 2009, Az .: C-407/07. In: Curia - Documents. Retrieved April 28, 2018 .
  17. ↑ ECJ: ECJ, judgment of September 4, 2014, Az .: C-452/13. In: Curia - Documents. Retrieved April 28, 2018 .
  18. ↑ ECJ: judgment of February 26, 2013, Az .: C-11/11. In: Curia - Documents. Retrieved April 28, 2018 .
  19. ↑ BGH: BGH, judgment of November 13, 2012, Az .: X ZR 12/12. Retrieved April 28, 2018 .
  20. ↑ ECJ ruling: Airline must also compensate for connecting flights outside the EU . In: Spiegel Online . May 31, 2018 ( spiegel.de [accessed August 28, 2018]).
  21. ↑ Raoul Sandner: Complete overview 2019 on European law on flight compensation. In: Qamqam's lawyer blog. Retrieved September 29, 2019 (German).
  22. ↑ a b ECJ: ECJ, ruling of July 11, 2019, Ref .: C ‑ 502/18. In: CURIA - documents. Retrieved July 29, 2019 .
  23. ↑ ECJ: The airline must also be liable for delays due to partial flights from third countries that it does not organize. In: beck-current. Retrieved July 29, 2019 .
  24. ^ RA Raoul Sandner: Complete overview 2019 on European law on flight compensation. In: Qamqam's lawyer blog. Retrieved on July 29, 2019 (German).
  25. ↑ ECJ: ECJ, judgment of December 22, 2008, Az .: C 549/07. Retrieved June 16, 2018 .
  26. ↑ When is flight compensation excluded? And when not? In: Ersatz-Pilot Reiseblog . January 2, 2018 ( ersatz-pilot.de [accessed July 18, 2018]).
  27. ↑ ECJ November 19, 2009 verb Rs C-402/07 and C-432/07 Rn 43 ff .
  28. ↑ ECJ, judgment of: Judgment of April 17, 2018, Az .: C ‑ 195/17. Retrieved August 28, 2018 .
  29. ↑ Lisa Oder: Strikes: Experts expect high chances of compensation from Ryanair . ( handelsblatt.com [accessed on August 28, 2018]).
  30. ↑ Dr. Henrik Bremer: Compensation if a technical defect causes a flight delay? In: WIRTSCHAFTSRAT law . October 11, 2017 ( wr-recht.de [accessed April 28, 2018]).
  31. ↑ ECJ, judgment of September 17, 2015, Az .: Rs C-257/14
  32. ↑ ECJ: Passengers have no right to compensation for flat tires . In: The time . April 4, 2019, ISSN  0044-2070 ( zeit.de [accessed February 28, 2020]).
  33. ↑ BGH, judgment of 24 September 2013, ref .: X ZR 160/12 and 129/12 ZR X, Press Release No.155 / 2013 and judgment imprint on dejure.org .
  34. ↑ European Court of Justice: ECJ, judgment of May 4, 2017, Az .: C-315/15. In: InfoCuria. Retrieved September 29, 2019 .
  35. ↑ Andre Helm: Bird strike is not a force majeure. Retrieved September 29, 2019 (German).
  36. ^ AG Königs Wusterhausen, judgments of January 14, 2011, Az .: 9 C 552/10; February 15, 2011, Az .: 9 C 560/10
  37. ↑ Quotation from the press release (PDF; 79 kB) prepared by juris of the ECJ of January 31, 2013, Az .: Rs C-12/11 (Denise McDonagh / Ryanair ).
  38. ↑ Marleen van de Camp: canceled flights: those affected waive more than 200 million euros in compensation . In: Business Insider Germany . ( businessinsider.de [accessed June 16, 2018]).
  39. ^ Bastian Henrichs: Start-Up: Why these men buy up plane tickets en masse . In: THE WORLD . February 15, 2016 ( welt.de [accessed June 16, 2018]).
  40. ↑ a b Stiftung Warentest: Passenger Rights - The Way to Compensation - Special - Stiftung Warentest. Retrieved September 7, 2017 .
  41. ↑ Stiftung Warentest: Passenger Rights: The Way to Compensation - A Portrait of Passenger Helpers , In: test 8/2016 (accessed online on August 3, 2016).
  42. ↑ Andreas Kieschle: 8 passenger portals in comparison: Which is the best in 2020? In: Qamqam Blog. Retrieved on February 28, 2020 (German).
  43. ↑ Passenger rights: "If there is no money, we can seize the aircraft" report by the daily DIE WELT from July 31, 2019, accessed on July 31, 2019
  44. ^ BGH, judgment of January 18, 2011, Az .: X ZR 71/10
  45. ↑ Example of a sample letter .
  46. ↑ Sola Hülsewig, Thomas Oberfranz: When airlines refuse compensation. In: SWR. Retrieved February 28, 2020 .
  47. ↑ BGH, judgment of February 25, 2016, Az .: X ZR 36/15
  48. ↑ Hermann-Josef Tenhagen: Airlines and travel groups: How passengers get money out of delays. In: Spiegel-Online. Retrieved September 7, 2017 .
  49. ↑ Fairtravel: For whom does passenger insurance pay off? In: Qamqam Blog. Retrieved September 29, 2019 (German).
  50. ↑ Maris Hubschmid: High success rates . ( tagesspiegel.de [accessed on September 7, 2017]).
  51. ↑ FOCUS Online: In the event of delays and flight cancellations: This is how you get your compensation . In: FOCUS Online . ( focus.de [accessed on September 7, 2017]).
  52. ↑ Sandra Willmeroth: Digital services replace the lawyer . In: Tages-Anzeiger, Tages-Anzeiger . April 9, 2017, ISSN  1422-9994 ( tagesanzeiger.ch [accessed October 9, 2017]).
  53. ↑ Mathias Born: This way, everyone quickly comes to their right . In: Berner Zeitung, Berner Zeitung . September 30, 2017, ISSN  1424-1021 ( bernerzeitung.ch [accessed October 9, 2017]).
  54. ^ Bastian Henrichs: Start-Up: Why these men buy up plane tickets en masse. Retrieved September 7, 2017 .
  55. ↑ Marcel Schneider: Law student enforces air passenger rights with a start-up . In: Legal Tribune Online . ( lto.de [accessed on September 7, 2017]).
  56. ^ Jacob Weizmann: Passenger Portals at a Glance - Comparison of Passenger Rights Service Providers . In: Legal.Tech-nically . May 6, 2018 ( diriso.de [accessed June 16, 2018]). Passenger portals at a glance - comparison of passenger rights service providers ( memento of the original from June 16, 2018 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / legal-technically.diriso.de
  57. ↑ Immediate replacement pilot compensation . July 11, 2017 ( ersatz-pilot.de [accessed September 7, 2017]).
  58. ↑ IT & Law: Berlin Legal Tech - the digital future of legal work . In: Legal Tribune Online . ( lto.de [accessed on September 7, 2017]).
  59. ^ Members of the arbitration board for public passenger transport SOEP . Retrieved October 15, 2014.
  60. ↑ Ryanair was one of the first airlines to voluntarily submit to arbitration by the arbitration board söp .
  61. ↑ Ordinance according to Section 57c of the Aviation Act on Arbitration in Air Traffic
  62. ^ Ernst Führich: New law for arbitration in air traffic . In: MDR 2013 . No. 13 , p. 749 ( reiserecht-fuehrich.de [PDF]).
  63. ↑ Overview of the legislative procedure in the documentation and information system for parliamentary processes [1] .
  64. ^ Opinion of the Federation of German Consumer Organizations from July 3, 2012 .
  65. ↑ Note: Only mentioned for the sake of completeness, as it falls under “Regulatory Areas”. But not relevant to the question of passenger rights.
  66. ↑ With notification of June 30, 2009 (State Letter 009/047), the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) pursuant to Article 24 Paragraph 2 of the Convention of May 28, 1999 for the Unification of Certain Regulations for Carriage by International Air Traffic (Montreal Convention) (BGBl. 2004 II p. 458, 1027) communicated that according to the simplified procedure provided there, an adjustment of the maximum limits for liability for damage to passengers and goods according to this convention to the rate of price increase of 13.1 percent that has been recorded since then is to take place. After a majority of the contracting states did not object to the notified increase, the new maximum liability limits will come into force on December 30, 2009 following the further notification of the ICAO of November 4, 2009 (State Letter 009/087). [Quotation from Federal Council document 76/10, February 12, 2010]
  67. ↑ Hans-Georg Bollweg: New maximum limits and minimum amounts insured in aviation liability , Reiserecht aktuell (RRa) 05/2010, 202.
  68. ↑ Passenger Compensation: Canada sets a flat rate for flight delays. In: fvw. Retrieved February 28, 2020 .
  69. ↑ a b Canadian Transportation Agency: Air passenger protection regulations. September 4, 2018, accessed February 28, 2020 .
  70. ↑ a b Simon Sturm: Passenger rights in Canada: what passengers are entitled to from 2020. In: Qamqam Blog. Retrieved on February 28, 2020 (German).
  71. ↑ Hannah Jackson: Changes to air passengers' rights are now in effect. Here's what you should know. In: Global News. Retrieved February 28, 2020 .
  72. ^ Jackie Dunham: Passenger bill of rights: The air travel rules coming into effect in December. In: CTV News. December 12, 2019, accessed February 28, 2020 .