Brussels, 01/02/2013 (Agence Europe) - The closure of airspace due a volcanic eruption is a special circumstance under which airlines are required to care for passengers whose flight has been cancelled. Under EU law, there is no time or financial limit on this care for passengers (accommodation, meals and refreshments), ruled the European Court of Justice on 31 January 2013 in case C-12/11, agreeing with the conclusions of Advocate General Yves Bot, who said about the same case (see EUROPE 10581) that the duty of care must last until the event that led to the cancellarion is over, independently of whether the airline was responsible for that event, in order to ensure the safety of passengers, who are especially vulnerable when trapped in an airport.
The Dublin Metropolitan District Court brought the case to the European Court of Justice of a passenger on a Ryanair flight from Faro to Dublin, a flight delayed due to the eruption of the Icelandic Eyjafjallajökull Volcano in April 2010. The passenger said that Ryanair had not provided her with the necessary care and should have provided compensation for the expenses she had had to defray (board and lodging, transport and so on). The Irish court asked whether the closure of airspace due to a volcanic eruption is a special circumstance under EU law requiring it to take care of passengers under EU Regulation (EC 261/2004), or whether it was, instead, beyond the bounds of special circumstances, in which case the airline is not required to provide help to passengers. The court also asked that, if the answer to the first question is yes, then should there be a time or financial limit on the care to be provided.
In the ruling, the European Court of Justice ruled: EU law does not recognise a separate category of “particularly extraordinary” events, beyond “extraordinary circumstances”, which would lead to the air carrier being exempted from all its obligations under the regulation, including those to provide care. If circumstances such as those at issue in the present case went beyond, due to their origin and scale, the scope of “extraordinary circumstances”, it would in fact mean that air carriers would be required to provide the care referred to in the regulation only to air passengers who find themselves, due to cancellation of a flight, in a situation causing limited inconvenience. On the other hand, passengers who find themselves in a particularly vulnerable state in that they are forced to remain at an airport for several days would be denied that protection. Therefore the Court replied that circumstances, such as the closure of part of European airspace as a result of a volcanic eruption, such as that of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano, constitute “extraordinary circumstances” which do not release air carriers from their obligation to provide care. The Court added that, “while the obligation to provide care entails financial consequences for air carriers, they cannot be considered disproportionate to the aim of ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. The importance of that objective may justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain economic operators. In addition, air carriers should, as experienced operators, foresee costs linked to the fulfilment of their obligation to provide care. Furthermore, they may pass on the costs incurred as a result of that obligation to airline ticket prices”. The Court stated that “when an air carrier has failed to comply with its obligation to provide care to an air passenger, the passenger may obtain reimbursement of the amounts which proved necessary, appropriate and reasonable to make up for the shortcomings of the air carrier”. (FG/transl.fl)