“Goodwill would be good due to chaotic circumstances”

class=”sc-3778e872-0 cKDKQr”>

On March 7, an Edelweiss flight from Punta Cana (Dominican Republic) to Zurich was delayed for exactly 12 hours. Reason: a technical malfunction. Blick reader Thomas Hassler (57) was among the passengers affected. “At the airport they gave us papers listing our passenger rights,” he says. Plus a $20 meal voucher. This much. “But the situation was chaotic,” Hassler says.

He wanted to be satisfied when he returned to Switzerland. Passenger rights are specified in EU Air Passenger Rights Regulation 261/2004. It regulates what compensations airlines have to pay retroactively up to three years in case of flight delays, flight cancellations and no-boarding. After consulting with legal protection insurance, Hassler claimed back the 600 francs he potentially deserved through the flight passenger rights portal cancelled.ch.

Edelweiss, however, denied compensation in a letter that Blick received. The Swiss holiday airline fulfilled its core obligations, provided on-site support services and was willing to bear any costs for on-site catering. The Swiss sister argues that “while the decisions of the European Court of Justice are fully enforceable only in the EU, they are not binding for Switzerland”.

special case Switzerland

Fool for Hassler: Edelweiss is right about that. More precisely: It uses a loophole like other Swiss airlines. Philippe Strässle (55), Switzerland head of the air passenger rights portal Airhelp, explains to Blick that “Switzerland has accepted basic regulation AB 261, but has not accepted court decisions that have appeared in various EU courts.” These court decisions are “meat-based” decisions that enable the passenger’s rights to be enforced in a practical and fair way for the passenger. “Unfortunately, Swiss jurisdiction is currently limited to bones,” Strässle says.

This means that there are “differences in application” of law between the EU and Switzerland. Strässle: “Passengers whose delays are dealt with by Swiss courts are generally worse off than those who sue in the EU.” For many, the cost of litigation abroad is very high. According to Strässle, cases usually have a good chance of success, as there are hundreds of decisions in the EU.

The situation is different if the flight is to a destination outside the EU or has to go from there to Switzerland. Although a flight from Punta Cana to Zurich is theoretically covered by Air Passenger Rights Regulation 261, there are almost no lawsuits filed outside the EU under the regulation. “We tried and we lost our teeth,” Strässle says.

not much chance

The Federal Civil Aviation Administration (Bazl), which is ultimately responsible for the observance of air passengers’ rights, states: “The legal text of Regulation 261/2004 does not provide for any compensation in the event of a delay.” In some cases there are EU court decisions confirming the right to compensation. But unequivocally: These decisions are not binding in Switzerland. Some cannot penalize the airline company that does not pay the compensation in case of delay due to lack of legal basis.

Hassler no longer expects compensation, even if he says “a little goodwill would be nice” given the chaotic situation. However, having been “deceived by the same standard letter” a second time, he has now booked his next flight with Condor via Frankfurt (Germany) to Punta Cana.

Source :Blick