CJEU CASE C-76/23, REIMBURSEMENT IN TRAVEL VOUCHERS for a sum of money. In this case, they would have to contact their customer service in advance so that the latter could examine the facts, given the severe crisis, experiencing long waiting periods, a single language available, and communication costs. Now, no examination of the facts is necessary for refunding money other than that carried out to issue the voucher; the issue is the same: the company cancelled the flight. Long waiting times for telephone support, costs and non-response to emails are exhausting for consumers, inducing them to choose the most advantageous solution for the air carrier. In short, by creating additional steps for the cash reimbursement that did not exist for issuing the voucher, there is cunning behaviour on the part of the airline, creating difficulties for the passengers and guiding them in a particular direction. This is precisely the opposite of the favourable treatment sought by the European legislator who, in the case of the voucher, because it is more unfavourable to the consumer than the amount of money, aims to protect their position. The CJEU states this in the following part: “ That applies a fortiori since the addition of such supplementary steps is liable to render reimbursement by a sum of money more difficult to obtain, and thus to upset the relationship between the two means of reimbursement which the EU legislature, as is apparent from paragraph 20 above, has established. That would conflict with the objective pursued by Regulation No 261/2004 consisting in ensuring a high level of protection for air passengers.” Regarding the signed agreement/written agreement dichotomy, the European judges considered pertinent the observations of the French government covering “express, definitive and unequivocal acceptance of the reimbursement of the cost of the ticket by a travel voucher, by the sending of a form filled in by that passenger on the website of the operating air carrier without that form including the handwritten or digital signature of that passenger.” Strangely, the CJEU supports the argument that requiring the passenger's signature would increase the burden linked to the administrative management of these airline refunds and would likely delay the refund process for the passenger consumer himself. All over the world, companies already have mechanisms whereby the consumer, instead of subscribing, safely enters a subscription code sent to their cell phone. What seems controversial is to facilitate the travel voucher by a form completed by the consumer on the air carrier's website (payment that the European legislator considers less favourable and, as such, requires particular caution) when the same possibility is not granted for a cash payment, bank transfer or check. The unfairness that the CJEU considered to exist when the “reimbursement of the cost of that ticket by a sum of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==