Court of Appeals rules Finnair must pay compensation for delays due to techicals
Feb 16, 15, 5:37 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Finland
Programs: Almost anything with six to twelve steps...
Posts: 1,025
Court of Appeals rules Finnair must pay compensation for delays due to techicals
According to MTV3, the Helsinki Court of Appeals (hovioikeus) has just made a ruling that requires airlines to pay compension for delays caused by technicals.
Until now, Finnair has refused to pay up for technicals as it has claimed they fall under extraordinary circumstances exempted from compensation. This particular case deals with an incident in 2009 in Dubai where the air conditioning system of the plane malfunctioned and caused a long delay.
The new ruling is rather significant but it is more than likely that Finnair will appear to the Supreme Court. Given the nature of the case, my guess is that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case.
Cheers,
T.
Until now, Finnair has refused to pay up for technicals as it has claimed they fall under extraordinary circumstances exempted from compensation. This particular case deals with an incident in 2009 in Dubai where the air conditioning system of the plane malfunctioned and caused a long delay.
The new ruling is rather significant but it is more than likely that Finnair will appear to the Supreme Court. Given the nature of the case, my guess is that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case.
Cheers,
T.
Feb 16, 15, 9:07 am
#3
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: HEL
Programs: AA Plat Pro, AY Lumo, Hyatt Explorist, National Exec Elite
Posts: 152
Here is the article in Helsingin Sanomat: http://www.hs.fi/talous/a1424060093166
Note the cost of proceedings (82000EUR)! Somebody had a lot of dedication to go through the whole process to recover the EC261 compensation...
Note the cost of proceedings (82000EUR)! Somebody had a lot of dedication to go through the whole process to recover the EC261 compensation...
Feb 16, 15, 11:43 pm
#4
Moderator, Finnair
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Platinum, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 13,453
Interesting. When is the deadline for appeal?
This has been trialed in other europeean courts, and it is a bit surprising if Finnish supreme court could go againts? I mean, this is legislation that superceeds the national laws, right? So can it even be appealed under national courts?
This has been trialed in other europeean courts, and it is a bit surprising if Finnish supreme court could go againts? I mean, this is legislation that superceeds the national laws, right? So can it even be appealed under national courts?
Feb 17, 15, 12:08 am
#5
Join Date: May 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+Plat, ALL Gold, Scandic L2
Posts: 3,548
IANAL but AFAIU, European directives are not laws. They are requirements and guidelines for country-specific laws. So presumably Finnair was found to violate the Finnish country-specific implementation law of EC261, not EC261 per se.
If you'd find that the Finnish legal system failed to enforce EC261, then I guess you'd have to take the Finnish government, not Finnair, to the European courts.
If you'd find that the Finnish legal system failed to enforce EC261, then I guess you'd have to take the Finnish government, not Finnair, to the European courts.
Feb 17, 15, 12:46 am
#6
Moderator, Finnair
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Platinum, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 13,453
IIRC the current ruling ("maintenence performed according to manufacturers instructions does not equal all tech issues can be considered extraordinary") was made by an EC-court and therefore valid across the union.
But I am far from sure.
In such a situation, I guess any competing airline would be happy to sue Finland if the commision is slow to react.
Feb 17, 15, 3:13 am
#8
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
EC261 is not a directive, but rather an EU regulation (Fi: asetus). These do not (and cannot) be implemented nationally. So Finnair was found to be in direct violation of EC261, as there is no national implementation.
Also, at least on one Finnair case (that went as far as the Supreme Court and the ECJ), the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority acted as counsel for a consumer. Therefore, the consumer beared no cost risk of his own. However, in this case, I suspect that the consumer really has had a paid counsel, as I don't think the CCA is allowed to charge legal costs even from the counterparty.
Also, at least on one Finnair case (that went as far as the Supreme Court and the ECJ), the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority acted as counsel for a consumer. Therefore, the consumer beared no cost risk of his own. However, in this case, I suspect that the consumer really has had a paid counsel, as I don't think the CCA is allowed to charge legal costs even from the counterparty.
Feb 17, 15, 3:31 am
#9
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
I have just received a copy of the judgment from the Court of Appeals. It seems that the claimant actually ended up having to pay some € 10,000 of his own legal expenses in the Court of Appeals. So in the end, he ended up winning € 600, but having to dig up € 10,000 from his own pocket to pay his lawyers.
I guess that's called taking one for your team.
I guess that's called taking one for your team.
Feb 18, 15, 2:02 am
#11
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
He might be but he has used external counsel. Otherwise wouldn't be able to rack up such high fees. From what I know, the going rate for your own legal work (which that too only applies if you are a lawyer) is much lower than what's accepted if you have an external counsel.
Feb 18, 15, 3:38 am
#12
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PVG, FRA, SEA, HEL
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 4,782
So in the end, he ended up winning € 600, but having to dig up € 10,000 from his own pocket to pay his lawyers.
Moreover, Finnair is pretty "stupid" not to settle. It has nothing to gain here.
Feb 18, 15, 3:59 am
#13
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 536
He might be but he has used external counsel. Otherwise wouldn't be able to rack up such high fees. From what I know, the going rate for your own legal work (which that too only applies if you are a lawyer) is much lower than what's accepted if you have an external counsel.
Feb 19, 15, 3:50 am
#14
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
He was awarded some EUR 85,000 in legal costs altogether, but his total legal costs were about EUR 95,000.
Feb 19, 15, 3:53 am
#15
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: HEL
Programs: AY+ Gold (OWS)
Posts: 528
This is why the CoA did not award the plaintiff his legal costs in full (no English translation, sorry):
Hovioikeuskulut
46. Nurminen on vaatinut oikeudenkäyntikulujensa korvaamista hovioikeudessa 45.304 eurolla. Finnair on kiistänyt Nurmisen oikeudenkäyntikuluvaatimuksen van Damin asiantuntijalausunnon ja ennakkoratkaisupyyntöön liittyneiden oikeudenkäyntikulujen osalta. Finnair on lisäksi paljoksunut asiaan käytettyä tuntimäärää ottaen huomioon, että Finnairilla oli asiassa todistustaakka.
47. Vaatimukset on hovioikeudessa ratkaistu Nurmisen hyväksi lukuun ottamatta käräjäoikeuskuluista hylättyä osuutta. Hovioikeus ei ole hyväksynyt Nurmisen ennakkoratkaisupyyntöä. Ennakkoratkaisupyynnön tekemisestä ja Finnairin siihen antamaan vastaukseen perehtymisestä sisältyy Nurmisen oikeudenkäyntikuluvaatimukseen yhteensä 1.950 euron määräinen kuluerä. Ennakkoratkaisupyynnön hyväksymättä jättäminen on koskenut harkinnanvaraista seikkaa, jolla on kuitenkin ollut vähäistä suurempi vaikutus asianosaisten oikeudenkäyntikuluihin. Nurmisella ei siten ole oikeudenkäymiskaaren 21 luvun 1 ja 3 §:n nojalla oikeutta saada sanotuilta osin korvausta oikeudenkäyntikuluistaan.
48. Hovioikeus arvioi Nurmisen tarpeellisista toimenpiteistä johtuviksi kohtuullisiksi oikeudenkäyntikuluiksi hovioikeudessa 35.000 euroa.
46. Nurminen on vaatinut oikeudenkäyntikulujensa korvaamista hovioikeudessa 45.304 eurolla. Finnair on kiistänyt Nurmisen oikeudenkäyntikuluvaatimuksen van Damin asiantuntijalausunnon ja ennakkoratkaisupyyntöön liittyneiden oikeudenkäyntikulujen osalta. Finnair on lisäksi paljoksunut asiaan käytettyä tuntimäärää ottaen huomioon, että Finnairilla oli asiassa todistustaakka.
47. Vaatimukset on hovioikeudessa ratkaistu Nurmisen hyväksi lukuun ottamatta käräjäoikeuskuluista hylättyä osuutta. Hovioikeus ei ole hyväksynyt Nurmisen ennakkoratkaisupyyntöä. Ennakkoratkaisupyynnön tekemisestä ja Finnairin siihen antamaan vastaukseen perehtymisestä sisältyy Nurmisen oikeudenkäyntikuluvaatimukseen yhteensä 1.950 euron määräinen kuluerä. Ennakkoratkaisupyynnön hyväksymättä jättäminen on koskenut harkinnanvaraista seikkaa, jolla on kuitenkin ollut vähäistä suurempi vaikutus asianosaisten oikeudenkäyntikuluihin. Nurmisella ei siten ole oikeudenkäymiskaaren 21 luvun 1 ja 3 §:n nojalla oikeutta saada sanotuilta osin korvausta oikeudenkäyntikuluistaan.
48. Hovioikeus arvioi Nurmisen tarpeellisista toimenpiteistä johtuviksi kohtuullisiksi oikeudenkäyntikuluiksi hovioikeudessa 35.000 euroa.
