of passengers and their baggage by air41, published on 13 March 201342. In the draft text, a new Article 16b is added under the heading “Passenger Complaints and Claims”, which requires Member States to designate one or more national bodies responsible for extrajudicial dispute resolution between air carriers and passengers regarding rights guaranteed by the Regulation43. Thus, the community legislator’s stance in favour of alternative dispute resolution in air transport is unequivocal44. The European Parliament’s position on the proposal -issued through its legislative resolution of 5 February 201445- unequivocally reinforced this position46. However, after a dispute between Spain and the United Kingdom over Gibraltar Airport, the proposal was blocked in November 201547. Shortly thereafter, in its Communication “An Aviation Strategy for Europe” of 7 December 201548, the Commission urged the European Parliament and the Council to swiftly approve the proposed amendments and announced the adoption of interpretative guidelines to ensure that, while awaiting approval, 41 For a detailed analysis of its content, we refer to GONZÁLEZ CABRERA, I., “La disminución de la protección del viajero en el transporte aéreo. Un cambio de tendencia (A propósito de la propuesta de Reglamento del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo modificativo de los Reglamentos CE nº 261/2004 y 2027/9/”, Revista de Derecho del Transporte, nº 15, 2015, pp. 97-130; or MARCO ARCALÁ, L. A., “El futuro marco de protección de los pasajeros aéreos…”, cit., pp. 33-75. 42 COM (2013) 130 final. 43 Previously, in its Recital 22, it is warned that passengers must have the possibility to submit claims against air carriers through out-of-court measures. Furthermore, for an analysis of this aspect of the proposal, see GUERRERO LEBRÓN, M.ª J., “Remedios no jurisdiccionales…”, in ZUBIRI DE SALINAS, M., El contrato de transporte de viajeros…, cit., pp. 146-151. 44 This point is also emphasised by MARCO ARCALÁ, L. A., “El futuro marco de protección de los pasajeros aéreos…”, cit., p. 66. 45 OJ C 93/336, 24 March 2017. 46 In fact, Amendment 28 –formulated in relation to Recital 22 of the proposal– proclaims the duty to particularly refer to online dispute resolution procedures and alternative dispute resolution, as well as the European procedure for small claims “in order to allow a simple, fast, and cost-effective resolution of claims and judicial and out-of-court proceedings.” In turn, Amendment 129 introduces significant modifications to the proposed Article 16 bis: i) it establishes the duty of Member States to ensure that air passengers can submit disputes concerning the rights recognised in Regulation No. 261/2004 to independent, effective, and efficient out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms; ii) it specifies that these bodies must be distinct from the body designated as the EB; iii) it proclaims that these bodies must have jurisdiction to resolve the dispute by a final and binding legal ruling for both parties; and iv) subjects all airlines operating flights from an airport in the territory of a Member State or from a third country to an airport in that territory to the dispute resolution system provided for in Directive 2013/11/EU. Lastly, Amendment 130 extends the minimum period from which a passenger who has filed a claim or complaint with the carrier concerned may appeal to any national out-of-court dispute resolution body, setting it at one year. 47 Apparently, the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union has unlocked the process and in February 2020, the Croatian presidency of the Commission presented a proposal to revise the Regulation, analysed by DEFOSSEZ, D., “Proposed revisions of Regulation nº 261/2004: Endangering passengers´rights and going against the international trend?, Journal of Air Transport Management, 91, 2021, pp. 1-17. However, as of the completion of this work, there are no new developments on this matter. 48 COM (2015) 598 final, 7 December 2015. 41 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ADR IN PASSENGERS AIR TRANSPORT
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==