In the case which I had referred to in Rostock as "Frozen Antarctica Dreams" and which regarded a couple who had missed their Antarctica cruise following of a delayed departure of their feeder flight to Frankfurt caused by snow covered runways at the Vienna airport had sued the carrier and the airport for damages but their claim was dismissed by the court of first instance, the appelate court (OLG Wien) has now reversed the judgment and held both, Lufthansa and the Vienna airport liable for the damages.
With regard to a reference for preliminary ruling filed by the Austrian Civil Supreme Court, ECJ Advocate General Cruz Villalón in his opinion delivered on May 24, 2012 suggested that Article 15 of the Brussels I Regulation should not be interpreted as requiring a distance contract between the consumer and the entrepreneur.
On May 15, 2012, ECJ Advocate General Bot has delivered his opinion in two pending cases where the national courts sought a review of the "Sturgeon"-Judgement. In this judgement, the Court of Justice had ruled that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, so far as the right to compensation is concerned, in the same way as passengers whose flights are cancelled.
The European Commission will hold a half-day stakeholders' conference on the revision of the Package Travel Directive (90/314/EEC) on 05 June 2012. The conference will take place at Charlemagne, room Jenk –– Rue de la Loi 170 – 1049 Brussels. It will primarily aim at hearing and collecting stakeholders' views on certain key issues related to the revision of the Directive.
On June 5, 2012, the German Civil Supreme Court (BGH) will hear two cases involving flight cancellations due to airline personnel strikes. In one case the appelate court (LG Köln) had held that the operating carrier may not refer to a strike of its own personnel as an "extraordinary circumstance", in the other case the second instance court (LG Frankfurt/Main) had decided to the contrary.
A hotel owner has paid the price for ignoring fire safety laws and been hit with a £210,000 fine following a successful prosecution by London Fire Brigade. The case was a landmark hearing for the UK fire and rescue service, believed to be the first time that a jury – rather than magistrates or an individual judge - has convicted a defendant under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.