Edelweiss Flight - long delay

Reply

Old Mar 15, 19, 6:55 am
  #16  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 9
Ok So Edelweiss are still saying they won't pay a penny compensation as they are above this law. Does anyone have any recommendations for a decent claims agency. We want to take this further.........
Kezzer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 15, 19, 9:59 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON**,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by Kezzer View Post
Ok So Edelweiss are still saying they won't pay a penny compensation as they are above this law. Does anyone have any recommendations for a decent claims agency. We want to take this further.........
They are wrong since EU261 is valid in Gran Canaria.

You don’t say where your based & a local claim agency might be easier for you.

Bott & Co are very good. www.bottonline.co.uk

www.airhelp.com

Good luck & do let us know how it goes.
chris63 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 19, 1:46 am
  #18  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 9
Thank you. We’re actually based in Switzerland.

For interest this is Edelweiss final reply in which they totally refuse to recognise the ECJ ruling as valid.

What is odd is that at the airport whilst checking in on the delayed flight, we were given a paper from Edelweiss which details our rights to compensation under EU261......strange????!

They say:

In accordance with Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Air Transport Agreement, Switzerland adheres by implication to the "Community acquis", meaning the legal provisions as well as the judgments, rulings and decisions of the European Court of Justice and the Commission of the EU relevant for the implementation, interpretation and application of those legal provisions as they were in existence at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement; the cut-off date is 21 June 1999.

Furthermore, the recognition of later judgments, rulings and decisions for Switzerland requires the approval by the Joint Committee within the meaning of the Air Transport Agreement.

To the extent apparent, the EU has, to the present date, not communicated any decision etc. taken by the ECJ or by the Commission to Switzerland, nor has any such decision been presented to the Joint Committee including, in particular, the above-mentioned ECJ judgment of 19 November 2009.

Therefore, in the absence of such communication to Switzerland and in the absence of approval pursuant to the rules set out in the Air Transport Agreement, the judgment of 19 November 2009 is not applicable to the present case.

For final clarification, we refer to the judgment of the district court in Bülach, 02.02.2016, which has been published in law. No compensation is due for delayed flights to Switzerland or from Switzerland.
Kezzer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 19, 10:01 am
  #19  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON**,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by Kezzer View Post
Thank you. We’re actually based in Switzerland.

For interest this is Edelweiss final reply in which they totally refuse to recognise the ECJ ruling as valid.

What is odd is that at the airport whilst checking in on the delayed flight, we were given a paper from Edelweiss which details our rights to compensation under EU261......strange????!

Not strange at all, you were departing from EU on a flight under EU261 rules, part of that is to give you that form, so you are aware of your statutory rights.
If i were you I would forward that form to them, ask them to reconsider & then if they rebuff you again, use an agency.
chris63 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 19, 10:07 am
  #20  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 9
Already done! 👍🏻 And I explained my confusion to them as to why we would received such a form - clearly entitled your rights under 261/2004 - when they claim this doesn’t apply to them!! Hummmm, let’s see.......
chris63 likes this.
Kezzer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 19, 3:00 pm
  #21  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 10,752
Originally Posted by Kezzer View Post
......For final clarification, we refer to the judgment of the district court in Bülach, 02.02.2016, which has been published in law. No compensation is due for delayed flights to Switzerland or from Switzerland.
Anyone knows what that was referring to?
TerryK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 19, 3:10 pm
  #22  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 9
I believe they are using this Swiss precedent as their basis for refusing to recognize and implement EC law....in other words their disclaimer for any liability for compensation...,,Convenient hey?!
Kezzer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 19, 3:47 pm
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 10,752
Originally Posted by Kezzer View Post
I believe they are using this Swiss precedent as their basis for refusing to recognize and implement EC law....
That doesn't answer my question as to what it was referring to. Is it a valid precedent? I am not a lawyer but by reading the case referred, you may get a feeling if WK is blowing smoke or not.
TerryK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 19, 8:54 pm
  #24  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON**,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by TerryK View Post
That doesn't answer my question as to what it was referring to. Is it a valid precedent? I am not a lawyer but by reading the case referred, you may get a feeling if WK is blowing smoke or not.
It’s there is google, decision by the court of first instance that in the bilateral agreement regarding Switzerland adoption of EU261 it does not recognise ECJ rulings that delays incur compensation under EU261.

However OP would be likely to succeed against WK in a case brought in the Canary Islands.
chris63 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 19, 5:03 am
  #25  
Marriott Contributor BadgeFairmont Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: ZRH
Programs: LX, SK *G, FPC, GA/AG
Posts: 1,047
Okay, to clear up the confusion and summarize the important facts:

There are different versions of EU261 in effect based weither you look at the law in the EU or at the law in Switzerland. The court decision of Bülach was the answer to the question weither EU court rulings on EU261 are to be applied in Switzerland, and their answer was a definitive NO.
All rulings that were made in the EU are NOT applicable in Switzerland. This includes the ruling that a certain delay validates a refund, mechanical defects and weather are not unforwseen events, which are not mentioned in the base EU261 text!

So depending on where you will proceed with the case EU vs Switzerland, you will have vastly different outcomes and chances of success.

Swiss as well as Edelweiss will always try to base them on the Swiss law which is more beneficial to them, however, if you make it clear you will go against them as per EU law (which can be done when you flight has touched EU soil, but can't if it hasn't) in an EU country and an EU court, more pax generous EU law will be applicable, including the part where there are refunds for delays.
Nick Art is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 19, 6:00 am
  #26  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON**,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by Nick Art View Post
Okay, to clear up the confusion and summarize the important facts:

There are different versions of EU261 in effect based weither you look at the law in the EU or at the law in Switzerland. The court decision of Bülach was the answer to the question weither EU court rulings on EU261 are to be applied in Switzerland, and their answer was a definitive NO.
All rulings that were made in the EU are NOT applicable in Switzerland. This includes the ruling that a certain delay validates a refund, mechanical defects and weather are not unforwseen events, which are not mentioned in the base EU261 text!

So depending on where you will proceed with the case EU vs Switzerland, you will have vastly different outcomes and chances of success.

Swiss as well as Edelweiss will always try to base them on the Swiss law which is more beneficial to them, however, if you make it clear you will go against them as per EU law (which can be done when you flight has touched EU soil, but can't if it hasn't) in an EU country and an EU court, more pax generous EU law will be applicable, including the part where there are refunds for delays.
Thanks & nice to get an eminent Lawyers perspective & free advice at that

So, the OP has excellent chances of success since they were stranded in Canary Islands which does fall under EU261
ECJ judgements ?
chris63 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 19, 6:19 am
  #27  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 10,752
Originally Posted by Nick Art View Post
............There are different versions of EU261 in effect based weither you look at the law in the EU or at the law in Switzerland. The court decision of Bülach was the answer to the question weither EU court rulings on EU261 are to be applied in Switzerland, and their answer was a definitive NO...........
Great analysis. Looks like WK is following Swiss law and refused to pay compensation. OP has no ground in Switzerland but has a good case in EU. OP needs to bring an action in Spain.
Nick Art likes this.
TerryK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 19, 9:51 am
  #28  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Stoke on Trent, UK (MAN ), BUE, BKK, DBV
Programs: LH HON**,UA,BA.EK Gold,AV.
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by TerryK View Post
Great analysis. Looks like WK is following Swiss law and refused to pay compensation. OP has no ground in Switzerland but has a good case in EU. OP needs to bring an action in Spain.
Exactly

Or an agency, as a last resort because of their fees or inconvenience to the OP
chris63 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 19, 3:13 pm
  #29  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 9
Thanks so much to everyone for all your input and help.

I have gone back to Edelweiss and explained that I will proceed with court action in Spain. I am prepared to request a final time that they reconsider before I take it further.

I am looking to use an agency despite the costs. 50-75% of the compensation we’d hopefully receive is better than 0% if we don’t bother. It’s also become a point of principle for me now - such terrible customer service and absolutely no recognition of the inconvenience and impact such a long delay has on customers!
chris63 likes this.
Kezzer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 19, 5:08 pm
  #30  
Fairmont Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: ZRH
Programs: LX, SK *G, FPC, GA/AG
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by chris63 View Post


Thanks & nice to get an eminent Lawyers perspective & free advice at that

So, the OP has excellent chances of success since they were stranded in Canary Islands which does fall under EU261
ECJ judgements ?
Yes.
Thank you (But I’m not actually a lawyer, my dad is, if that helps.)

Originally Posted by TerryK View Post
Great analysis. Looks like WK is following Swiss law and refused to pay compensation. OP has no ground in Switzerland but has a good case in EU. OP needs to bring an action in Spain.
Thanks! Exactly.
chris63 likes this.
Nick Art is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread