In her opinion in case C- 83/10 (Sousa Rodríguez) delivered on June 28, 2011, ECJ Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston came to the conclusions thatthe term “cancellation”, as defined in Article 2(l) of Reg. 261/2004 covers cases in which a flight departs but then returns to the airport of departure and proceeds no further;the term “further compensation” in Article 12(1) includes compensation awarded, in accordance with national legislation and case-law, for damage (including non-material damage) in respect of a cancellation arising as a result of a breach of a contract of carriage by air; andpassengers affected may claim reimbursement of any expenditure incurred by them as a result of an air carrier’s failure to fulfil obligations imposed on it by Articles 8 and 9 (assistance and care), irrespective of whether they requested fulfilment of the obligations at the relevant time. Compensation granted under Article 7 may not be deducted from such reimbursement.The opinion follows the court’s clear tendency to strenghten passenger rigths and interpret the wording of the Regulation in favour of the passengers mainly.Full text of opinion available here>>.
