submitting a complaint cannot be dismissed68. The proposed amendment to Regulation No. 261/2004 foresees that these functions will be assigned to separate entities: on the one hand, a competent national body ensuring compliance with the regulation -Article 16.1 of the Proposal- and, on the other hand, one or more national bodies responsible for the extrajudicial resolution of disputes between air carriers and passengers concerning the rights guaranteed under the regulation -Article 16 bis.3 of the Proposal-. 2. AESA as an Alternative Dispute Resolution Entity: The Procedure Regulated by Order TMA/201/2022 2.1. Scope of application As stated in Article 1, Order TMA/201/2022 aims to regulate the alternative dispute resolution procedure for disputes brought by passengers before AESA concerning the application of European Union regulations on the protection of air transport users. This initial statement requires clarification. First, the alternative dispute resolution procedure regulated by this Order does not apply to all disputes originating from EU regulations related to the protection of air transport users. Specifically, Article 3(f) of the Order excludes passenger claims based on Regulation No. 2027/97, which concerns the liability of airlines for the air transport of passengers and their baggage69. In this regard, we previously stated that this exclusion was surprising70. On the one hand, because poor handling or management of baggage is the subject of a significant number of claims that also need to be addressed. On the other hand, because in cases of destruction, loss, damage, or delay of baggage, passengers undoubtedly deserve protection. Lastly, because that Regulation forms part of the EU acquis on passenger rights and thus is one of the legislative instruments underpinning appeals to AESA’s knowledge specifically because of its role as the enforcement body of both regulations. 68 A similar opinion is held by DEFOSSEZ, D., “Proposed revisions of Regulation nº 261/2004…”, cit., p. 11, when discussing the 2020 proposal to revise the Regulation, which envisaged the designation of enforcement bodies -EBs- as alternative dispute resolution bodies. 69 This exclusion also extends to complaints regarding the destruction, loss, damage or delay of checked luggage under any other law or convention -Article 3(f)- thus, the Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999 or the Warsaw Convention of 12 October 1929. 70 See PÉREZ MORIONES, A.., “Hacia la consolidación de la resolución alternativa de conflictos…”, cit. Later, similarly, CONTRERAS DE LA ROSA, I., “Afianzamiento de mecanismos extrajudiciales para la tutela del pasajero…”, 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…, cit., p. 58; MARCHAL ESCALONA, N., “El marco regulador en proyecto en España para la resolución alternativa de conflictos…”, in ARIZA COLMENAREJO, M.ª J. and FERNÁNDEZ-FÍGARES MORALES, M.ª J., La resolución alternativa de litigios…, cit., pp. 152-153; or RUEDA VALDIVIA, R., “Orden TMA/201/2022, de 14 de marzo…”, cit., p. 47 46 ARÁNZAZU PÉREZ MORIONES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==