an inspection procedure for the airline and/or airport operator to check whether they have complied with the obligations set out in the report. Naturally, it is also possible that the report may not have addressed the passenger’s complaint or may not have done so in the terms the passenger expected. In either case, the passenger may resort to judicial proceedings, in which case the report will be useful64. Thus, at least from the passenger’s perspective, the effectiveness of AESA’s actions is extraordinarily limited65. The Agency itself clarifies in its activity reports on passenger rights that its objectives in the context of complaints under Regulations No. 261/2004 and No. 1107/2006 are66: i) to advise and inform air passengers of the rights they are entitled to, as well as the available channels for submitting complaints; and ii) to protect and mediate in disputes that may arise between passengers and air operators and, where applicable, between passengers and airport operators within the scope of the Regulations. Ultimately, AESA’s role is reduced to a form of mediation between the passenger and the airline and/or airport operator. Consequently, the protection provided to passengers by AESA is insufficient. As we know, AESA has taken on a new role: acting as an alternative dispute resolution body to protect air transport users. This appointment has received well-founded criticism for combining the functions of an enforcement body responsible for ensuring compliance with regulations protecting air transport users, and that of an alternative dispute resolution entity concerning the same subject matter67. The potential for confusion among the average passenger when cases, airlines acceded to users’ requests even before AESA issued its report -see “Estudio de satisfacción de los usuarios con los servicios prestados por AESA, 2022”, p. 29-. However, this data should be contextualised with another relevant fact: the percentage of users who are fully satisfied with the resolution proposed by AESA to the complaint stands at 60.1% -ibidem, p. 32-. At the time of writing, no subsequent reports had been published by AESA. Therefore, the latest available reports are those corresponding to the year 2022. 64 According to AESA -ibidem, p. 37- 31.4% of passengers found it very helpful, and 13% found it somewhat helpful when resorting to the judicial route. Another 13% claim it was of little use, while the remaining and majority group, 42.6%, stated that it was of no use at all. 65 Similarly, GUERRERO LEBRÓN, M.ª J., “Remedios no jurisdiccionales…”, in ZUBIRI DE SALINAS, M., El contrato de transporte de viajeros: cit., p. 143, describes it as “quite limited”. 66 See “Informe Anual 2022…”, cit., p. 6. 67 Also, see NADAL GÓMEZ, I., “La resolución alternativa de litigios…”, in ARIZA COLMENAREJO, M.ª J. and FERNÁNDEZ-FÍGARES MORALES, M.ª J., La resolución alternativa de litigios…, cit., pp. 247-249; which is then followed by CONTRERAS DE LA ROSA, I., “Afianzamiento de mecanismos extrajudiciales para la tutela del pasajero frente a las compañías aéreas en España”, in PETIT LAVALL, M.ª V. and PUETZ, A. (Dirs.) and VICENTE MAMPEL, C. and GILABERT GASCÓN, A. (Coords.), El transporte ante el desarrollo tecnológico y la globalización, Editorial Colex, Madrid, 2022, p. 62. Not for RUEDA VALDIVIA, R., “Orden TMA/201/2022, de 14 de marzo: Un paso más hacia la consolidación de la resolución alternativa de litigios de consumo en el transporte aéreo”, Revista de Derecho Privado, 2022, nº 5, p. 45, who 45 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ADR IN PASSENGERS AIR TRANSPORT
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==