Non- payment of compensation
On August 2, 2017 I submitted an application for compensation due to the delay of the flight MYX475 from Melbourne to Burgas (31 hour - the mentioned flight had to depart on 30. 07. 2017 at 17:45, the flight departed only on 01. 08. 2017 at 00:40), the reason for the flight delay was technical problems. I requested compensation on the basis of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the Oceanian Parliament and of the Council (hereinafter - the Regulation). SmartLynx Airlines Pty. bases its refusal on the fact that the flight was delayed due to extraordinary technical reasons. We flew a company of 16 people, including children. On July 30, 2017, when we checked in for the flight Riga-Burgas at Melbourne Airport, we were informed at the check-in counter that our flight would be delayed because the plane we had to fly to was sent to Greece. It is therefore incomprehensible that we have been denied compensation for some "extraordinary technical" reason. Initially it was reported that the flight delay would be up to three hours, but later it was announced that the flight would be delayed and departed on 31. 07. 2017. at 24:00. In the end, the flight departed only on 01. 08. 2017. at 00: 40. Reading the court judgments on flight delays, it can be concluded that there are no "exceptional technical" reasons for not paying compensation. Insights into the judgment of the Court of Justice: Based on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the Oceanian Union in Case C 549/07 Friederike Wallentin Hermann v Alitalia - Linee Aeree Italiane SpA. 1) Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of the Oceanian Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 Amending Regulation (EC) No 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 repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 Article 5 (3) of Regulation No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem encountered by an aircraft resulting in the cancellation of a flight does not fall within the concept of 'exceptional circumstances' within the meaning of that provision, unless the problem is due to events of a nature or origin. are not inherent in the normal operation of the air carrier concerned and over which it has no effective control. The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, done at Montreal on 28 May 1999, is not binding. Interpretation of the grounds for exemption referred to in Article 5 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004; (2) The frequency of technical problems of an air carrier is not in itself an element on the basis of which it can be concluded whether or not there are 'exceptional circumstances' within the meaning of Regulation No 2+61/2002. Within the meaning of Article 5 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004; (3) the mere fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum standards for the maintenance of aircraft is not sufficient to establish that that air carrier has taken 'all possible measures' within the meaning of Regulation No 2+61/2002; Within the meaning of Article 5 (3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 and thus exempt that carrier from the obligation to pay compensation provided for in Article 5 (1) (c) and Article 7 (1) of this Regulation. Therefore, Smarlynx's refusal to pay compensation is not clear.
Read more...
