Brussels, 13/10/2011 (Agence Europe) - The return, for whatever reason, of a plane to the airport of departure after takeoff, must be considered as cancellation of the flight, which means that, under certain conditions, passengers may seek compensation for non-material damage in addition to that awarded for material damage suffered.
With this ruling in case C-83/10, handed down on Thursday 13 October, the Court of Justice, answering two questions put by the Commercial Court No 1 of Pontevedra, Spain, clarified the concept of “cancellation” of a flight within the meaning of Regulation EC 261/2004, establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and the scope of “further compensation” provided for in the same regulation. The case in point concerned seven passengers on an Air France flight, which was forced because of technical problems to return to the airport of departure. The seven claimed €250 each in compensation for the cancellation of the flight and a further €650 each to compensate for non-material damage and cost incurred.
In its ruling, the Court states the concept of cancellation of a flight does not simply refer to the aeroplane's not taking off, but also to a situation where the plane takes off but “for whatever reason”, is forced to return to the airport of departure and where its passengers are transferred to other flights (as happened in this particular case). In such an event, the flight cannot be considered to have taken place, since it did not reach its destination. The Court states, too, that, in order to examine whether there has been a “cancellation”, it is necessary to examine the individual situation of each passenger transported, that is to say, to examine whether, in relation to the passenger in question, the original planning of the flight had been abandoned. Thus, in order to find that a flight has been cancelled, it is not necessary that all the passengers that had booked a place on the originally scheduled flight were transported on another flight: thus, since the seven passengers in this case were transferred to other flights, scheduled for the day after the expected departure date, the Court concludes that “their” originally scheduled flight must be classified as “cancelled”.
The Court holds that the concept of “further compensation” is intended to supplement the application of the standardised and immediate measures provided for by the regulation (reimbursement of ticket, payment of hotel, transport communication and restaurant costs incurred as a result of the cancellation). A national court may, then, compensate non-material damage arising from breach of a contract of carriage by air under the conditions provided for by the Montreal Convention (up to a maximum of €4,750) or national law. The concept of “further compensation” cannot, however, be used as legal grounds against a company which fails to fulfil its obligations to assist and to take care of costs that fall to it pursuant to the regulation (see above). (FG/transl.rt)