Brussels, 23/03/2015 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday 24 March, the ad hoc workgroup will examine the draft regulation on the protection of the airline passenger rights. Technically, this will involve amendments to regulation 261/2004 and regulation 2027/97 on which Parliament reached a vote on its position in February 2014.
The debate will focus on the question of “exceptional circumstances”, defined as those that are “beyond the air handler's control” and which allow the latter to avoid some of the obligations in the text. This list is defined in annex 1 and includes natural disasters, war or political instability, medical emergencies or even disruptive passenger behaviour. The European Commission would like this list to be “non-exhaustive”, contrary to the European Parliament.
According to the draft regulation discussed on 24 March and seen by EUROPE, the Latvian presidency would like to follow the Commission's line on this point. It is proposing to add a clause stipulating that these exceptional circumstances for cancellations “need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis” and asserts that “as regards the assessment of labour disputes at the operating a carrier, national social legislation could also be considered”. This proposal has the support of Germany, which would like to add a sentence highlighting the possibility of allowing exemptions to this list. Denmark on the other hand, would prefer the list to be “binding and exhaustive”.
The president is also proposing a list of “technical shortcomings”, which would constitute, “a separate category of exemption”. Austria and Germany opposes. The presidency is proposing that this second list is exhaustive.
A second important point involves the modalities according to which airlines will be allowed to benefit from exceptional circumstances and technical shortcomings. The previous presidency list is dated the end of last February and obliges air carriers to “prove” the cancellation of a flight was caused by one of these technical shortcomings or exceptional circumstances. This obligation of proof, however, disappeared from the proposal currently on the table. One source close to the Latvian presidency indicated, “It is not expected to have a lengthy debate on so called political parts of the file, but rather to hear the initial reactions of the member states on the latest compromise”. It does not expect to obtain a general approach on this text by June but does hope to have “a substantial Progress Report” at the Transport Council in June this year. (Jean Comte)