ECC-Net involvement in Air Passenger Rights Bianca Schulz, ECC France Stakeholder conference on Air Passenger Rights, Brussels, 30 May 2012
The ECC-Net - Created in 2005 by the fusion of two former networks (the Clearinghouses and Euroguichets ) - Geographical coverage: 1 centre for every member state + Iceland and Norway = 29 centres - one binational contact point of the ECC-Net : ECC France and Germany located in the same host structure - Cofinanced by the European Commission (DG SANCO/EAHC) and the Member states - Very different set up in the respective Member states (NGOs, ministries etc)
The ECC-Net Our missions: - Observatory and relay for the European Commission and national and European stakeholders on the well functioning of the Internal market - Information and advice for consumers in cross-border matters - Assistance for the extrajudicial resolution of cross-border complaints - Promotion of alternative dispute resolution The Vademecum which is part of the contract with the EU and MS is currently under revision to strengthen the role of the ECCs and will include in the future for example - Cooperation with enforcement bodies and - Assistance in cross-border judicial procedures such as small claims
Case handling within ECC-Net consumer trader ECC based in the state of the consumer Consumer - ECC ECC based in the state of the trader Trader - ECC
Case handling within ECC-Net using ADR/ODR schemes consumer trader ADR/NEB/CPC ECC based in the state of the consumer Consumer - ECC ECC based in the state of the trader Trader - ECC
The ECC-Net Advantages of the case handling procedure for consumers and business: equity and pre-eminence of law consensual solution Free procedure Quick solution (for ECC France and Germany the average is approx. 2 ½ months) Efficient treatment (approx. 70% of consumer satisfaction) Confidentiality
The ECC-Net Advantages of the case handling procedure for other stakeholders: The ECCs share cases via a common Intranet, our IT-Tool All information requests and complaints are registered in this tool and monitored with the outcome Besides the simple and efficient transfer of cases it also allows a general overview of sector specific complaints handled by the network If more detailed, the IT-Tool could be an important instrument to monitor APR cases within the EU, Iceland and Norway.
APR and the ECC-Net In addition to answering consumers requests about their rights under EU legislation and handling cross-border complaints, each ECC - Carries out information campaigns (e.g. airport event 4.7.2012) - publishes information and a website - gives presentations - produces various joint projects, reports and surveys - and provides feedback to the European Commission and other stakeholders based on practical experiences of case-handling.
APR and the ECC-Net In June 2004 the Montreal Convention replaced the Warsaw Convention (loss, damage or delay to baggage or persons) In February 2005 a new EU Regulation came into effect (261/2004) (denied boarding, delay, cancellation of flights) At the same time ECCs reported an increase in contacts from consumers related to this sector. This increase continued over the years and the ECC-Net monitors it regularly. But ECCs also began to report difficulties in case handling and resolving complaints also due to differences in interpreting the relevant law. These reasons let to the publication of several APR reports in 2005,2006, 2011.
ECC-Net statistics on APR
Nature of complaints Re-routing and reimbursement of cancelled flights depending on the good will of companies Assistance : inequality of treatment between carriers Absence of information or false information to the consumers by airline staff members
2010 statistics linked to the Volcano Country of carrier Consumer country
83% cancellation/delays/denied boarding 17% baggage 2010 statistics linked to the Volcano
Lessons learned from these extraordinary circumstances There is need for Strengthening cooperation and coordination between national and European institutions as well as with stakeholders directly involved in the handling of such complaints A more uniform application of the EU regulation also in the information provided to consumers on their respective rights Creation of ADR-bodies in the tourism sector
Different NEB schemes in the EU, a very few examples Only very few NEBs intervene in an individual complaint to obtain a result for an individual consumer (for example Spain or Netherlands). Most NEBs seem to intervene and sanction airlines in a collective interest. But the sanctions existing are very seldom publically available. See for example a publication of the NEB Italy: after the volcano crisis, ENAC fined Ryanair with 3 millions for failing to honour its obligations to assist passengers. An investigation revealed that it had on 178 occasions violated its legal obligations to assist at Rome s Ciampino airport. Ryanair has appealed the ruling. Also NEB and CPC-Net are competent for regulation 261 so an articulation and coordination between both is necessary.
Different ADR schemes in the EU The ADR landscape varies considerably from one country to another and has not yet reached its full potential in the APR sector. The ECC-Net is currently conducting a research for a joint project in this area. - There are still countries with no ADR (for example Austria, Ireland or the Netherlands since the end of the aviation complaints board). - There are mostly public (Finland Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Cypress to mention some only), but also private (Belgium,even though ministry support, Iceland and Italy (alitalia)) and public-private (Luxemburg, Portugal) initiatives - Some are notified but not all. - There are very, very few ADRs specialised in APR, most are of general competence, some have a regional competence. - There might be some ADR which are also NEBs such asd in Denmark where cases under Reg 261 are dealt with by the Danish Transport Authority which both enforces the regulation and handles individual complaints.
= 20 % of the total number of complaints handled by the ECC-Net But what about 2011 and the first quarter of 2012? 2011 60% complaints 40% information requests 85% cancellation/delays/denied boarding 15% baggage
1 st quarter 2012 70% complaints 30% information requests 90% cancellation/delays/denied boarding 10% baggage = 50 % of the total number of complaints handled by the ECC-Net
Main difficulties encountered in 2011/2012 Flight delays and refusal of the air carriers to acknowledge the «Sturgeon case» (EUCJ 19.11.2009) Flight cancellations and the difficulties, even impossibilities to appreciate «extraordinary circumstances» ( Wallentin, EUCJ 28.12.2008) => Consequences for the consumers: - Legal uncertainty - Difficulties to pursue in a court proceeding
Main difficulties encountered in 2011/2012 Sale of «flight only» tickets by travel agencies: during booking no clear information and supplementary charges Errors, changes or absence of reservation Ping-Pong back and force between agency and carrier in case of reimbursement or compensation Airline insolvency procedures Complexity and differences in procedures throughout the EU Uncertainty as to the possible outcome of the procedure Usually passengers are at the very bottom of the list of creditors
Ideas for a revision of APR Clear concepts and proper definitions for legal certainty definition of extraordinary circumstances harmonisation of the concepts of delay and cancellation A simple assistance system (maybe a flat rate) Consideration of other actors Responsibility of airports A clear responsibility of travel agencies and carriers for «flight only» Rules for airline insolvencies Strengthening of cooperation between different stakeholders and institutions Continue efforts for ADR development
Any questions?
Thank you for your attention schulz@cec-zev.eu