Civil Aviation Office of the Republic of Poland - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Civil Aviation Office of the Republic of Poland Enforcementoftherulesof Regulation(EC)No261/2004 CONTENTS Legal basis for complaint handling 1. Complaint handling procedure 2. Legal basis for sanctions 3. Financial
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The Aviation Law
DivisionXa Protectionofpassengerrights Art.205a. 1.ThePresidentofCAOcontrolsthecompliancewiththeprovisionsoftheRegulation(EC)No 261/2004 (…), in the field of observing the rights of air transport passengers, and in particularofclaimhandling,referredtoinArt.16par.2oftheRegulation. (…) Art.205b.
lodged, thePresident ofCAO states,byissuing anadministrativedecision: 1)noviolationoflawbytheaircarrieror 2)violationoflawbytheaircarrier,withadefinitionofthe scopeofirregularitiesandfine setforthinart.209bpar.1andwheninfringementof art.7,art.8item.1(a)orart. 10item2oftheRegulationisstated,itshallsetforthdutytoremoveitaswellasremoval date. 3.Thecomplaint,referredtoinpar.1,shallbeaccompaniedbythefollowingdocuments: 1)acopyofcomplaintaddressedtothecarrier, 2)thereplyofthecarriertothepassenger’scomplaint– ifthereplyhasbeenextended, 3)confirmationofreservationforacertainflight, 4)statementofcomplianceofcopiesofdocumentsmentionedinpoin statementofcomplianceofcopiesofdocumentsmentionedinpoints1 ts1 3withoriginal 3withoriginal documents. documents.
boardingortheflighthasbeencalledoffordelayed,pursuanttotheRegulation(EC)No 261/2004havenotbeenviolated,restsontheaircarrier.
The Administrative Procedure Code
ComplaintshouldbelodgedinPolishorEnglish(proceedingsarecarriedoutin Polish) Complaintshouldbeoriginallysignedbyapassenger Handlingprocedureisatwoinstanceprocedure Timelimitsofcomplainthandling(30 60days) Complaintsarehandledona‛case by case’ basis
CAO RECEIVES COMPLAINT CAO CHECKS WHETHER IT FAILS UNDER REGULATION IF NOT, CAO REJECTS COMPLAINT IF YES, CAO CHECKS WHICH NEB IS COMPETENT IF OTHER NEB IS COMPETENT, CAO FORWARDS COMPLAINT TO THIS NEB IF CAO IS COMPETENT, CAO CHECKS THE FULFILMENT OF FORMAL CONDITIONS OF THE COMPLAINT (ENCLOSED COMPLAINT SENT TO THE AIR CARRIER, CONFIRMED RESERVATION ETC.) IF A PASSENGER FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, THE COMPLAINT SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED.HE MAY LOGDE A COMPLAINT ONCE AGAIN WHEN THERE IS A LACK OF SOME LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, CAO CALLS THE PASSENGER TO SUBMIT FAILING DOCUMENTS WITHIN 7 DAYS PASSENGER SUBMITS THE FAILING DOCUMENTS NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROCEEDINGS SENT TO THE PASSENGER AND TO THE AIR
RECEIVES ALSO A DEMAND FOR EXPLANATIONS
EXPLANATIONS NOT RECEIVED FROM THE AIR CARRIER EXPLANATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE AIR CARRIER DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY EXPERTS DEPARTMENT (AIR OPERATIONAL DEPARTMENT OR TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT) NOTICE OF THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCES CAO ISSUES A DECISION. THE MAIN PARTS OF THE DECISION WHEN ANY PARTY (A PASSENGER OR AN AIRLINE) DOES NOT HAVE THE RESIDENCE IN POLAND OR DOES NOT KNOW POLISH ARE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH. THE DECISION IS SENT TO BOTH PARTIES. IN THE SAME DECISION CAO STATES THE INFRINGEMENT (IF THERE IS ONE) AND (IF THERE IS ONE) IMPOSES SANCTION ON THE AIRLINE. THE PARTIES MAY APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS. PARTIES DO NOT APPEAL – AFTER 14 DAYS DECISION IS BINDING A PARTY (OR BOTH) APPEALS THE CASE HAS TO BE RECONSIDERED. IF THE PARTY DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE SECOND DECISION, IT MAY APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS TO VOIVODSHIP COURT VOIVODSHIP ADMINISTR- ATIVE COURT SUPREME ADMINISTR- ATIVE COURT
DivisionXIa Fines Art.209b. 1.Apersonwhobreachesdutiesorconditionsprovidedforinthe Regulations mentioned in Article 209b (including Regulation (EC) No 261/2004) or does not comply or compliesimproperlywiththeobligationsarisingoutofabove mentionedregulations, shallpayafine intheamountstipulatedinAnnexeno2totheAviationLaw. 2.Thefineforbreachofdutytocarestipulatedinart.9oftheRegulationshallnotbe paidifthecarriervoluntarilycompensatesthepassengerforthelackofpropercare beforethedatewhenthedecisionisissued. 3.Thefine forbreachofobligationtoinformpassengersoftheirrightsstipulatedinArt. 14item2oftheRegulationshallnotbepaidiftheaircarrier,despiteitsfailureto complywithhisdutytoinformpassengersabout theirrights,hasperformedallthe
4.Inthecasementionedin(3),itisassumedthatpassengershavebeeninformedabout theirrights.
Theresultsofobligatorysanctionsimplementation
Visibleincreaseofcasesfinishedbyanagreementbetweenparties,whichisabasis for, using the phrase from Administrative Procedure Code, ‛discontinuance of the proceeding‛. Voluntary satisfaction to a passenger for the lack of care before the decision is issued. Palpably increased reponsivity from air carriers at each stage of the proceeding. Theyaremoreactive(inthevastmajorityofcasestheyaredeterminedtoprovide Commission on Air Passengers’ Rights with evidences which could be used as circumstancesexcludingtheirresponsibilityforthepotentialinfringmentoftherules
are analyzed by experts from Technical Department or Operational Department ,whichareorganizationalunitswithinthestructureoftheCivilAviationOffice). Less work for the Commission on Air Passengers’ Rights with complaints on this sameflights– afteronedecisionstatingtheinfringementontheconcernedflight,the aircarrierusuallypayscompenstationtoothercomplainingpassengers. AirlineswithouttheresidenceorofficeinPoland,frequentlydonotpaysanctions whichareimposedonthemfortheinfringementoftheRegulation 261/2004.
Asfornow: from50to1200EURfor
YEAR AMOUNT OF DECISIONS STATING INFRINGEMENT AMOUNT OF IMPOSED FINES* (IN THOUSAND EUR) **
2006 11 11.000 2007 32 8.931 2008 110 44.131 2009 128 32.840 2010 86 35.749 2011 105 103.584
* Since 1.04.2007 fines have been obligatory ** Exchange rate from the official website of National Bank of Poland, www.nbp.pl (access: May 24, 2012)
!" !
$
$
' #$ $ $ $
$# # # !!
""!!"
21 2008 18 2009 13 2010 20 2011 14