that this supervision is compatible with the right of passengers and air carriers to seek judicial redress in accordance with national laws. Furthermore, Member States were required to establish the sanction regime applicable in case of violation and to ensure its enforcement, always within the parameters outlined in the respective regulations. Both regulations stipulated that sanctions should be effective, proportionate and deterrent. However, both regulations were silent on the powers and functioning of the enforcement body. Additionally, Regulation No. 261/2004 omitted any provision related to the claims procedure, while Regulation No. 1107/2006 outlined some basic guidelines in Article 15. 2. The early recognition of its inefficiency In the first report on the operation and results of Regulation No. 261/2004, the existence of problems related to the functioning of the enforcement bodies was acknowledged. In the Commission’s Communication to the European Parliament and the Council of 4 April 2007 on the operation and results of Regulation No. 261/2004, it was stated that the ambiguity of this text regarding the competencies and functions of these bodies had led to passengers encountering inconsistent forms of application and enforcement of their rights27. It was also acknowledged that the differences between Member States in the enforcement process were considerable and that the powers of the compliance bodies to act on individual claims varied, although they could rarely enforce compensation payments in individual cases28. Finally, the legal difference between the types of sanctions that could be imposed in the Member States was highlighted: in most of them, the sanctions were administrative, but in some countries -Denmark, Belgium, and the United Kingdom- they were of a criminal nature29. Recognising this situation, the Commission proposed intensifying cooperation with the enforcement bodies to address the deficiencies and suggested the eventual drafting of a Code of Good Practices that would include issues not covered by the Regulation30. During the second evaluation of the Regulation’s implementation, the Commission took a more proactive stance on the issue at hand. In the 27 COM (2007) 168 final, p. 9. In particular, it pointed out that passengers lodging a complaint often had to wait for a long period before receiving any response, or faced language difficulties when making a claim in the Member State where the incident occurred. 28 Ibidem, pp. 9 and 10. 29 Ibidem, p. 10. 30 Ibidem, pp. 10 and 12. 38 ARÁNZAZU PÉREZ MORIONES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==