Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

None of my posts on this forum are designed to deter or encourage litigation in flight delay claims. The reason I post is that it concerns me that some of the advice (by no means all) given by others on this forum has become rather complacent. At times, relatively complicated legal issues are overly simplified. There appears to be a presumption that whatever an airline says about the law is wrong (which sometimes it is). On some occasions, advice is given on these forums which is flatly incorrect.

Dr Watson, you still seem to be missing the point that the ESCP is not a jurisdictional regime. It is a procedural mechanism which can be employed in a Court which has jurisdiction.

Luten, you are absolutely right and have spotted Dr Watson's mistake yourself. The ESCP can be used where the Court has jurisdiction, but it does not itself confer jurisdiction. For claims within the EU instituted on or after 10 January 2015, the jurisdictional regime is contained in Regulation 1215/2012, which is known as 'Brussels Recast'. It replaces Regulation 2001/2004, which was known as 'The Brussels Regulation'. You can find a copy of it here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:351:0001:0032:en:PDF.

I'm not necessarily sure it follows that comments which do not encourage litigation are not helpful? Whilst parties on the small claims track are usually protected from the normal costs consequences of losing a case, that protection can potentially be lost. For example, if someone were to bring a claim against an airline after the expiry of the 6 year limitation period, the airline would have a good argument for recovering its costs. Similarly if someone were to bring a claim in a court which lacked jurisdiction, the airline would have a good argument for recovering its costs.

I try to provide a bit of balance to the fact that the vast majority of advice on these forums is along the lines of 'the airlines are always wrong and you should issue your claim immediately'. It is no bad thing, in my view, for people to stop and think carefully about whether they are actually taking an appropriate step by issuing a claim. Whilst the weight of opinion seems to be against me, I don't agree that my pointing out possible pitfalls to potential claimants is always unhelpful.

You will see, however, that I have provided Luten with helpful advice (even by standards other than my own, surely?) by pointing him in the direction of the jurisdictional rules.

Luten wrote: »

I'd feel much more comfortable if I found a clear and unambiguous regulation on which court has jurisdiction in my case. So far everything I've found does not apply to me (I can only be sued in my country of residence, doesn't say anything about me suing someone; consumers can sue companies in their country or residence but that does not apply to contract of transport… (can't post link as a new user)). This is quite frustrating!

This is a repost of something I put up a while ago.

"The question of which national court has jurisdiction over a 261/04 claim was determined in an ECJ ruling in 2009 (Rehder v Air Baltic). You can find that judgement here:

…europa.eu/legal-conte...EX:62008CJ0204

And a slightly more accessible explanation of this is provided by the European Consumer Centre here:

eccbelgium.be/which-court...ght-s51231.htm

The essence of the point is as follows:

Quote:

"In summary, it appears from the ECJ’s ruling that the applicant can choose to summon the air carrier to appear before the court in the place of departure or place of arrival of the aircraft, if his claim is based on a contract of carriage from one Member State to another with one sole airline which is the operating carrier and which is based on Regulation 261/2004. Moreover, the applicant retains the possibility of summoning the air carrier before the court where it has its registered office, central administration or principal place of business.""

Luten wrote: »

Dr Watson, maybe all the cases you won were for flights to or from the UK?

Luten,
No.
I have a 'friend' who took a flight from somewhere in Eire to somewhere else in the EU and was an Eire habitant. To avoid the Irish small courts, my friend pursued their claim using ESCP using a relatives UK address. Case won.

Dr Watson,

Thank you for your response. I’m sorry to say that you have fallen into error once again.

I’d first like to point out that I have not actually expressed any view as to whether or not the English courts would have jurisdiction on the facts Luten has described. I have merely pointed out two things:

1. Contrary to what you suggested, the ESCP has absolutely nothing to do with jurisdiction. It is a set of procedural rules, equivalent to the CPR. It provides a procedure which can be followed in a court which has jurisdiction under the applicable jurisdictional rules;

2. In a claim brought under Regulation 261/2004, the rules as to whether or not the courts of any particular Member State have jurisdiction are to be found in Regulation 1215/2012 (or Regulation 44/2001 for claims commenced prior to 10 January 2015).

There is therefore nothing incorrect about anything which I have said previously on this issue. On the other hand, your suggestion that the ESCP can confer jurisdiction on a court was incorrect. If you look at the ESCP, you will see repeated references to sending documents to 'the court or tribunal which has jurisdiction'. Those references make no sense if the ESCP itself confers jurisdiction. It does not. The ESCP contains no rules about when a court does or does not have jurisdiction. The jurisdictional rules are contained in the entirely separate Brussels regime.

You seem to have identified most of the relevant parts of Regulation 1215/2012. There is, however, an error in your analysis. Article 17(3), which you have correctly quoted, says: ‘This Section shall not apply to a contract of transport other than a contract which, for an inclusive price, provides for a combination of travel and accommodation.’ You will see that both Articles 17 and 18 appear in Section 4. The effect of Article 17(3) is therefore that Article 18 does not apply to transport contracts. Your reliance on Article 18(1) is misconceived.

You’ll see that Vauban has posted a link above to an ECJ case called Rehder v Air Baltic, which dealt with the issue of jurisdiction in claims under Regulation 261/2004. It was based on the old jurisdictional regime (Regulation 44/2001), but there is no material difference from the new regime (Regulation 1215/2012). You will see that the ECJ said that the jurisdictional rules allow a defendant in a claim brought under a contract of carriage by air to be sued in the following jurisdictions:

1. The place of domicile of the defendant, i.e. where it has its registered office, central administration or principal place of business (Articles 5(1) and 63 of Regulation 1215/2012); or

2. The place of performance of the obligation in question, i.e. the place of arrival or departure (Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation 1215/2012).

I should also point out that if an airline is sued in a court which does not have jurisdiction under the relevant rules, it is perfectly open to them to accept the jurisdiction of the court and to allow the claim to proceed, even though they could technically have disputed jurisdiction if they had wanted to. For example, Ryanair may prefer to be sued in England than in EIRE for whatever reason. It does not mean that you are always entitled to sue Ryanair in England, regardless of the particular facts of any given case.

Hopefully that will put this issue to bed.