Air France versus Folberts and Stugeon case re 50% reduction for delays

NicksTheMan

The case of heard in Europe on 26th February 2013 Air France versus Folberts seems unclear in its ruling for a 50% reduction for delays between 3 and 4 hours .The Sturgeon case does appear clear on this ruling but has anybody tested this issue being put forward by some airlines in the Small Claims Court. Have the CAA reacted following the Air France versus Folberts case there is certainly nothing new on their website.

Magic_Moments

I raised this very point on another forum. Has anyone actually got a Small Claims Court ruling on this issue yet. Or has anyone lodged a case at the Small Claims Court about the 50% reduction and airline have settled before the case is heard. It is all very well saying that the Sturgeon ruling is clear but if has not been tested yet,at the moment it is just hearsay. The airlines surely must feel they have a good chance of winning if they consistently use it in their defence. The real problem here is that having already received a 50% payment the percentage risk by paying court costs is higher for the remainder of the settlement. I am sure the airlines are aware of this fact and are using it as a lever.

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

The ECJ ruling in Sturgeon is NOT hearsay! It is the law and you will not find a competent court in England that will oppose this narrow point of the ruling.

I don't actually believe this aspect will be tested in court as the airlines know that their interpretation is incorrect but if it saves them some money by claimants not challenging this then they will continue to do this, at the end of it all it is a business and financial decision only for them.

If it were me I would have put the airline on notice via a NBA and then issued a legal claim for the remaining 50% outstanding. I am 100% certain that once faced with a potential legal claim, the remainder of the due compensation would be forthcoming, this aspect is not going to go to a hearing and the airlines know it full well.

By not doing so, passengers are simply allowing the airlines to get away with it.

Quite.

I might only add that, in matters of clear law like this, one should look to the CAA to have a quiet word and tell the airlines to stop writing out in this manner. Whilst I accept that the CAA are inundated with requests for complex investigations, this is something that they could do very quickly to demonstrate that they are not in the pockets of the airlines. Until they do, I remain deeply sceptical about their motives!

HitAndMiss

I thoroughly agree with Vauban that the CAA should speak to the airlines and show their hand about the 50% reduction in compensation claims for delays between 3 and 4 hours.This is an entirely different issue to the one for extraordinary circumstances which have to be judged on an individual basis. Or as mentioned above by Vauban are he CAA in the pocket of the airlines!!!. It is beginning to look that way.

Mark2spark

I don't think i've read a post yet where a positive response from the CAA has been given. Considering the ECJ ruling on 23 Oct was now 6 months ago, I find the inclusion of using the CAA as a step in the process to be a waste of time.

PaulPonting

Has the Air France versus Folberts case got any bearing. I admit my understanding of the law after reading the decision leaves me very unclear. But it did seem to leave the matter of the 50% reduction for a delay of between 3 and 4 hours unresolved/pending. Are there any other cases apart from sturgeon on this issue that anybody is aware of. Thank you.

Vauban

PaulPonting wrote: »

Has the Air France versus Folberts case got any bearing. I admit my understanding of the law after reading the decision leaves me very unclear. But it did seem to leave the matter of the 50% reduction for a delay of between 3 and 4 hours unresolved/pending. Are there any other cases apart from sturgeon on this issue that anybody is aware of. Thank you.

It's a complete red-herring. I don't understand how it has come into the frame. The Sturgeon judgement - which is European case law - is utterly unambiguous. Para 63 says:

63. It is important to point out that the compensation payable to a passenger under Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 may be reduced by 50% if the conditions laid down in Article 7(2) of the regulation are met. Even though the latter provision refers only to the case of re-routing of passengers, the Court finds that the reduction in the compensation provided for is dependent solely on the delay to which passengers are subject, so that nothing precludes the application mutatis mutandis of that provision to compensation paid to passengers whose flights are delayed. It follows that the compensation payable to a passenger whose flight is delayed, who reaches his final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled, may be reduced by 50%, in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, where the delay is – in the case of a flight not falling under points (a) or (b) of Article 7(2) – less than four hours.

Those flights not falling under (a) and (b) are those less than 1500km and those less than 3500km. Thus the 50% reduction applies only when the delay is between three and four hours on a flight over 3500km. I know the language is slightly impenetrable, but it's not ambiguous: and IT IS THE LAW!

BillLucas

So am I correct that the only cases heard about the 50% reduction for flights delayed between 3 and 4 hours (Distance under 3500km), are the Sturgeon case and Air France versus Folberts. No cases have yet been heard in the British Small Claims Court, or elsewhere in Europe Has anyone applied and got a date yet.