Vastus teabenõudele

Saatja: Marelle Pihlak </o=Majandus-Teede-Sideministeerium/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=Marelle Pihlak43e> Saaja: 'Zheka Vin', '[email protected]' Teema: RE: Complaint of violation of Regulation 261/2004 Dear Sir, In Estonia with consumer complaints is dealing Secretariat of the Consumer Disputes Committee. Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Estonian Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is responsible for implement of international aviation safety obligations. Kind regards, Marelle Pihlak Head of Administration Department / Communications Manager +372 610 3589 www.ecaa.ee <http://www.ecaa.ee/> | Lõõtsa 5, Tallinn 11415 Estonian Civil Aviation Administration From: Zheka Vin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 7:52 PM To: Lennuamet <[email protected]> Cc: Noreply Lennuamet <[email protected]> Subject: Complaint of violation of Regulation 261/2004 Dear Sirs and Madams, Please find attached a complaint (with accompanying documents) against an airline for the cancellation of a flight from Ukraine to Estonia. The airline denied my complain sent to it in accordance with the Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 due to bad weather, but I have proofs of good weather in Ukraine on the day of flight. Also, request for the proofs of bad weather was sent to airline, but they didn't answer. In such case airline have to provide proofs of bad weather according to decisions of European courts. On a separate note, please be kindly reminded that the ECJ has always been, and remains, strict on the narrow application of the notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, being the argument air carriers usually employ in attempt to exclude the liability under the Regulation. In view of this, please be reminded that in Wallentin-Hermann v Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (Case C-549/07), the ECJ highlighted that the burden of proof is on the relevant air carrier to substantiate that the alleged ‘extraordinary’ conditions, that caused the cancellation or delay, were in fact beyond actual control of an air carrier. Moreover, in view of the decision in Huzar v Jet2.com ([2014] EWCA Civ 791), the ‘bad weather’/‘adverse weather conditions’ arguments might only be permissible, and regarded as being ‘extraordinary’ and thus outside of air carriers’ control, if such bad weather was ‘freak’ and ‘wholly exceptional’. Going further, the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof in case of Xa ZR 15/10 (as of 14 October 2010) confirms that for bad weather conditions to qualify as extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation 261/2004, the operating air carrier faces a similar evidentiary burden, i.e. it must present official proof of the weather conditions it faced, and it must show it exhausted all efforts to avoid a delay or cancellation by any means available to it. Neither bare denials, nor unsubstantiated statements will be accepted. Your answer will be greatly appreciated!