Commission’s Communication to the European Parliament and the Council of 11 April 2011 on the application of Regulation No. 261/2004, the significant differences between the claims handling procedures, response times to passengers and the non-binding nature and scope of the opinions of the enforcement bodies were once again emphasised, which were frustrating for passengers and undermined the enforcement of the Regulation31. The data provided regarding claims handling was revealing. The waiting time to obtain the final opinion from the enforcement body could range from 4 to 18 months, in addition to the time it took for the airline to respond to the claim. Furthermore, to make a claim regarding two similar incidents with the same return ticket and the same Carrier -for example, lack of assistance during two major delays, one on the outbound flight and one on the return flight- passengers had to submit claims to two different enforcement bodies, follow two different procedures with different timeframes and receive two different types of opinions, one quantifying the specific rights to which they were entitled and the other assessing the level of enforcement with the Regulation32. Finally, it was noted that languages could present another obstacle, especially considering the cross-border nature of air transport and the application of the “incident-based” competence principle in claims processing by the enforcement bodies33. These significant disparities led the Commission to make several suggestions34. It even acknowledged that the structure of the enforcement bodies might not facilitate proper claims handling. Thus, it proposed the creation of arbitration or mediation bodies to help passengers seek binding, fast and cost-effective avenues for redress35. The Commission also suggested the need to “properly coordinate passenger rights legislation with the ongoing review of current or future EU 31 COM (2011) 174 final, p. 6, although, as pointed out in the Communication itself, two voluntary agreements had been reached clarifying the obligations of the bodies responsible for enforcemen -thereinafter, Enforcement Bodies or EBs- and airlines regarding the processing of claims. Two interpretative documents had been approved to help harmonise the application and enforcement of the Regulation, and the Commission had chaired several meetings of the EBs each year, facilitated continuous unofficial exchanges of information between the EBs, and maintained an “open and constant” dialogue with the aviation sector and all stakeholders within the framework of annual multilateral meetings. 32 Ibidem, p. 13. 33 Ibidem, pp. 13 and 14. 34 For example, the development of a mandate and internal regulation for the EB network, the promotion of greater coordination at the national level between the authority issuing the operating licence and the EB, and between the various national bodies designated as EBs, as well as the use by the EBs of effective data exchange tools to enhance coordination between their databases and improve information on the implementation of the Regulation, ibidem, pp. 15 and 16. 35 Ibidem, p. 13. 39 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ADR IN PASSENGERS AIR TRANSPORT
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==