ISSN 2184-8793 ISSNe 2975-9056 Sick leaves of this nature are inherent to the operations of air carriers, thus not constituting extraordinary circumstances.95 During the outbreak of COVID-19 the European Commission issued an interpretative guidelines to help with the interpretation of Regulation 261/2004. According to the latter when public authorities adopt measures intended to prevent the spread of the COVID-19, such measures are by their nature and origin not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of carriers and are outside their actual control. Nevertheless, it has been confirmed by the CJEU that the outbreak of the COVID-19 posed a significant health risk not only in the travel destination in question but worldwide. The CJEU addressed this in the UFC case96 that is linked to package travel, however the reasoning can be applied to the interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 as well. 5. Concluding thoughts and guidelines for the future The development in the field of tourism and travel in the EU has led to the adoption of measures to ensure a minimum level of passenger protection in air transport. Although the rights are covered by a regulation intended unify provisions of protection in this area, in practice, this has not been fully realized. Numerous provisions in the Regulation allow for various interpretations, and the definitions of terms are sometimes incomplete or lacking. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in recent years has posed an additional challenge, rendering air transport impossible for a certain period. The consequences were felt across all major areas covered by the regulation, i.e., flight cancellations, delays, and denied boarding. The uncertainties associated with the rapid spread of the disease increased the number of cancelled flights, increasing the number of compensation claims from passengers. In the light of the ongoing economic crisis reflecting in the continuous rise in fuel prices, there is a growing need to consider the interests of the air carriers. The crisis particularly threatens lowcost carriers and their market position. The significant financial burden, either in terms of compensations or the services carriers must provide regardless of the existence and duration of extraordinary circumstances, could be fatal for many. Financial instability and resulting bankruptcy proceedings would not only further hinder passengers in receiving compensation but also force carriers to exit the market, reducing travel options, especially for the lower-income population. The solution that carriers can resort to in these situations lies in the institute of extraordinary circumstances, which, as an exception to the general rule of carriers’ liability, may exempt them from paying compensation in the case of flight delays or cancellations. The occurrence of extraordinary circumstances is not inherently evident, as indicated by the extensive case law of the CJEU. A broad definition of the institute in the Regulation, linked with the absence of more precise criteria for its existence, is insufficient to address cases that have arisen in practice. This creates an opportunity for air carriers to overly rely on this exception, transforming it from an exception into a de facto rule. The Regulation and the CJEU's case law strive for the highest level of passenger rights protection, often overshadowing the position of carriers. The overload, both financially and organizationally, imposed on air carriers by such an approach is the core reason why carriers often intentionally 95 Ibid. 96 Case C-407/21, UFC of 8 June 2023, para. 51.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==