Browsing Tag Court of Justice
Road transport. The Court of Justice rules on the concept of “employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based”
The concept of “employer’s operational centre where the driver is normally based” designates a place from which the driver concerned usually carries out his or her shift and to which he or she returns at the end of that shift, in the normal exercise of his or her functions and without complying with specific instructions from his or her employer in that regard
The Court of Justice rules on the national legislation providing that the nullity of an insurance contract may be invoked against a “passenger victim” where it results from an intentional false statement made by that person when the contract was concluded
Directive 2009/103/EC precludes a national legislation under which it is possible to invoke against a passenger of a vehicle involved in a road traffic accident, who is a victim, and where he or she is also the policyholder, the nullity of the contract of insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles resulting from his/her false statement made in concluding that contract as regards the identity of the usual driver of the vehicle concerned
The Court of Justice rules on the possibility of considering as an “extraordinary circumstance” the detection of a hidden design defect in an aircraft’s engine, even when the air carrier had been informed in advance of its existence
The detection of a hidden defect in the design of the engine of an aircraft which is to operate a flight is covered by the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 even where the engine manufacturer had informed the air carrier of its existence several months before the flight concerned
The Court of Justice rules on the possibility to consider technical failures caused by a hidden design defect revealed by the manufacturer after cancellation of the flight as an “extraordinary circumstance”
The occurrence of an unexpected and unprecedented technical failure affecting a new aircraft model recently put into service, which results in the air carrier cancelling a flight, falls within the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” according to Regulation No 261/2004 where the aircraft’s manufacturer recognises, after that cancellation, that that failure was caused by a hidden design defect concerning all aircraft of the same type and impinging on flight safety
The Court of Justice rules on the possibility to consider the shortage of staff of the airport operator providing baggage loading services as an “extraordinary circumstance”
Despite the fact that there being an insufficient number of staff of the airport operator responsible for the operations of loading baggage onto planes may constitute an “extraordinary circumstance” according to Regulation No 261/2004, in order to be exempted from its obligation to pay compensation to passengers the air carrier whose flight has experienced a long delay on account of such circumstance is required to show that it could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that it adopted measures appropriate to the situation to avoid the consequences thereof