-
@LadyLondon – I simply take the view that it’s extremely unhelpful to make things up (and needlessly criticise AviationADR for its correct application of the law) that might give someone false hope about their claim.
The highest court ruling on ‘arrival time’ is very brief and simple. There is only one metric – a door must be open. Nothing more, nothing less so why add all this extra stuff that has no basis in fact.
I don’t dispute that you provide a lot of helpful advice but when, as in this case, it’s so wrong it calls other stuff into question.
@JDB The Henning judgment said more than you are saying. It states specifically, in multiple paragraphs, that *passengers must be permitted to leave the aircraft* as well as the doors having been opened, for the arrival time for EU261 to have been reached. Just for you, I’ve gone back to the actual text, in German, as issued by the Austrian court.
I’ll post it below in German with the link to the document and the key words highlighted.
Right now, for non-German speakers, here’s the same thing said officially in Ireland, in English.
“A flight is deemed to have officially arrived at its destination only when the doors are opened and passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft. This was decided by the Court of Justice of the EU in the case of Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning, Case C-452/13. In that case, the plane took off three hours and ten minutes after its scheduled time but landed on the runway at its destination airport, Cologne/Bonn with a delay of two hours and fifty-eight minutes. However, it took a further five minutes for the plane to taxi to a gate and for the doors to be opened.
“The Court ruled that the time spent between landing and disembarking represents an inconvenience to passengers. “…., passengers are unable to carry on, without interruption, their personal, domestic, social or business activities,” the court said. ***“It is only when the passengers are permitted to leave the aircraft *and* the order is given to that effect to open the doors of the aircraft*** that the passengers cease to be subject to those constraints and may in principle resume their normal activities.”
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A62013CJ0452 (actual text of Austrian judgment)
24
Erst wenn den Fluggästen das Verlassen des Flugzeugs gestattet ist und dafür das Öffnen der Flugzeugtüren angeordnet wird, können sie sich grundsätzlich wieder in gewohnter Weise betätigen, ohne den genannten Einschränkungen zu unterliegen.25
Aus dem Vorstehenden folgt, dass die Art. 2, 5 und 7 der Verordnung Nr. 261/2004 dahin auszulegen sind, dass der Begriff „Ankunftszeit“, der verwendet wird, um das Ausmaß der Fluggästen entstandenen Verspätung zu bestimmen, für den Zeitpunkt steht, zu dem mindestens eine der Flugzeugtüren geöffnet wird, ***sofern den Fluggästen in diesem Moment das Verlassen des Flugzeugs gestattet ist.***[26 – says IATA definition of landing time doesn’t apply to EU261.]
27
Nach alledem ist auf die Frage des vorlegenden Gerichts zu antworten, dass die Art. 2, 5 und 7 der Verordnung Nr. 261/2004 dahin auszulegen sind, dass der Begriff „Ankunftszeit“, der verwendet wird, um das Ausmaß der Fluggästen entstandenen Verspätung zu bestimmen, für den Zeitpunkt steht, zu dem mindestens eine der Flugzeugtüren geöffnet wird, ***sofern den Fluggästen in diesem Moment das Verlassen des Flugzeugs gestattet ist.***Cranzle I’m so sorry I’d never had to go so far as finding the original text that determines the definition of what I’ve always said is landing time for EU261. I wish I had before, and we have JDB to thank for that.
@LadyLondon – you have cited the discussion not the actual judgment which I have already cited in full and paragraph 27 you have quoted in German above says the same. The judgment specifies an assumption, ie the point it which it says passengers can disembark. The reason for this is also quite obvious. The Austrian judgment you reference is that of a lower court.
@JDB the part of paragraph 27 of the judgment in German that you are not taking into account is
*** sofern den Fluggästen in diesem Moment das Verlassen des Flugzeugs gestattet ist.***
translates to
PROVIDED the passengers are allowed to leave the aircraft
ie = ‘on the assumption that..’
in other words ‘provided that’..’the assumption being’, is open to incorrect shading and it does not mean in tbis case that the assumption follows. It means “provided that’s the assumption’.
I checked the English version in the EU documentation and there’s a note at the bottom of it that the case language is German. Therefore tbe German language version – the original judgment wording I pasted above -is the true one and it’s unambiguous in German that it means “provided that”. ie As well as doors being opened, passengers being allowed to leave the aircraft is co-determinant of arrival time / co-condition for arrival to have taken place. So both are needed.
@LadyLondon – I just don’t know where to begin with this nonsense. I don’t speak German but in any event, the ADR services and the County Court will accept the Court authorised English version rather than get into some translation war and expert witnesses with differing translations. That’s what is already happening. I had read the full judgment (in English) just prior to my first post on this thread today and I have subsequently read the decision in three languages I do speak. None of them say what you do. I have also read several case reports and top law firm reports of the judgment and list of precedents, none of which concur with your view. They all agree that the opening of a door is, in effect, the act which indicates the ability to disembark but no actual disembarkation is required to evidence arrival. This makes sense because the ooening of the door is formally recorded but the first stepping off of a passenger essentially requires VAR; otherwise it’s impossible to prove so would be a ridiculous measuring point. It is also entirely consistent with the whole discussion and reasoning that leads to the judgment.
So now we have you claiming superior knowledge to the ninth chamber of the ECJ and I cannot recall a single court judgment or ADR adjudication reported here that went against the passenger where you haven’t said the adjudicator or judge was wrong. I must therefore bow to your superior knowledge and refrain from offering any advice on EC261 or any other legal issues – please ensure you assist. There’s already someone with a Wizzair problem this evening.
@JDB the official documents of the EU were my only source for the copy of the original judgment – which was handed down in German – which the EU has adopted.
A poorly shaded phrasing In the translated English version has been picked up by you, at least. I don’t care how many languages you’ve read it in, the original judgment was made in German so is the source of truth as to what the judgment said. Despite your earlier dismissal of it as a “discussion’, this is a *judgment*. It is the 2014 judgment of the Austrian court in the Henning case.. The German phrasing and its meaning is unambiguous.
Luckily the official Ireland source whose <<correct>> understanding of the wording of the judgment in Henning, as published by them in English, I also provided above, does state the full correct meaning of the judgment including the requirement that for arrival to have taken place, passengers must be allowed to leave the plane, which you have ignored.
Believe me when I say the text of this judgment is totally unambiguous in German. It states that doors open is needed but passengers must also be allowed to disembark in order for arrival to have taken place for EU261.
If you don’t believe me show a professional native German.
Such a pity that the German, which was so clear, has been lost in translation for so many including the OP’s ADR adjudicator.
I’m not even going to respond to your other sneers and exaggerationss I’m not British enough to say just that the tone was disappointing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
