EU legislation allows compensation in cases when people are unjustifiably denied boarding. This was held in a judgement delivered by the adjudicator Dr Ilona Schembri presiding over the European Small Claims Procedure on 11 February 2025 in the case Aurelian Alin Marocico vs Wizz Air Malta Limited. This procedure was established by Regulation (EC) 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
The claim dealt with the fact that the Claimant’s son was not allowed to board to a flight to Istanbul, Turkey, because the passport had expired. He claimed damages of €1,800. The Defendant company did not reply to the claim.
The Adjudicator first dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. The Claimant and his son are domiciled in Romania, while the Defendant company is registered in Malta. The relationship between the Parties is one of consumer-trader relationship, but this is not governed by the Consumer Rights Directive, since it excludes the denial of boarding:
“Transport services cover passenger transport and transport of goods. Passenger transport should be excluded from the scope of this Directive as it is already subject to other Union legislation or, in the case of public transport and taxis, to regulation at national level. However, the provisions of this Directive protecting consumers against excessive fees for the use of means of payment or against hidden costs should apply also to passenger transport contracts. In relation to transport of goods and car rental which are services, consumers should benefit from the protection afforded by this Directive, with the exception of the right of withdrawal.”
The Adjudicator applied Brussels I regulation. This was explained in the law book entitled Air Passenger Rights, European Case Law:
“For flights from one Member State to another Member State, carried out on the basis of a contract with a single operating air carrier, a claim for compensation under the Regulation can be brought, at the applicant’s choice, to the national court which has territorial jurisdiction either over the place of departure or place of arrival, as stated in the contract of carriage (in application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (‘Brussels I’), now recast under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (‘Brussels I bis’)). Under Article 2(1) of Brussels I, passengers also retain the option of bringing the matter before the courts of the defendant’s (air carrier’s) domicile.”
Therefore, the Claimant had a right to either file an action in Romania or else the port of departure or Malta, as the place of domicile of the Defendant company.
The Adjudicator concluded that the applicable regulation governing the case at hand was Regulation (EC) 261/2004 of the European Parliament. This dealt with compensation and assistance to passengers in the event that boarding is denied.
On the merits of the case, the Claimant filed copies of the flight tickets. The son’s passport had less than 150 days left from the expiry date. According to Turkey’s official website the son had a right to stay for 90 days.
The Tribunal agreed with the Claimant that there was no legal right to deny his son from boarding the plane.
As to the calculation of the damages, the distance between airports is less than 1,500 km, which satisfied Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation 261/2004, which allowed for €250 per passenger. Since the claim only mentioned the father and son, damages were set at €500 to which were added the cost of the tickets (€71.88 each) for a total of €643.76.
Av. Malcolm Mifsud
Partner
Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
For more information you can contact one of our Team Members at Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates.
