they will need to submit their claims to the relevant dispute resolution body in the EU member state from which their flight originated71. However, we believe that these passengers should also be entitled to submit their claims to AESA -for example, a Spanish passenger departing from an EU airport and arriving at a Spanish airport-. In practice, therefore, AESA’s role as an alternative dispute resolution entity will primarily focus on conflicts involving passengers departing from airports located in Spanish territory. Finally, this alternative dispute resolution procedure applies to disputes raised by passengers under Regulation No. 1107/2006 against airport operators in Spanish territory who have joined the procedure, either beforehand or voluntarily, after the passenger’s claim is submitted to AESA and not explicitly rejected -Article 2.4 of the Order-. Specifically, prior adherence by the airport operator will compel them to accept the procedure -Article 7.2.d) of the Order-72. On the other hand, the Order notes that the procedure it regulates “applies to all air transport users, even if they do not have the status of consumers, hereinafter passengers...” -Article 2.2 of the Order-. Therefore, this is not an alternative dispute resolution procedure in the field of consumer law, despite the fact that this Order originates from the second additional provision of Law 7/2017. On the contrary, all air transport users can use this procedure, meaning any passenger, regardless of whether they qualify as a consumer. Thus, the legislator has opted to expand the subjective scope of the procedure compared to the solution adopted in the Draft Order73 -also in Law 7/2017-. This expansion of the subjective scope -one we have already advocated for74- is deserving of positive recognition. The need for non-consumer passengers to have access to a fast and 71 Indeed, a complaint will be inadmissible if it is not within the scope of the Order -Article 10.1(b) in connection with Article 2 of the Order-. Furthermore, Article 11 of the Order regulates in detail the case where a passenger submits a complaint to AESA despite its lack of jurisdiction: in principle, AESA will forward the complaint to the competent entity if there is explicit consent from the passenger; if not, it will inform them of the competent alternative dispute resolution entities in the relevant Member State and the possibility of submitting an electronic complaint form through the online dispute resolution platform. Finally, if the Member State has not notified a single alternative dispute resolution entity for air transport, AESA will inadmissibly reject the claim and inform the passenger, forwarding it to the enforcement body of the regulation that has allegedly been violated. 72 See our remarks below. 73 Indeed, although the draft text referred to the passenger, it defined them as “any individual acting for purposes other than their commercial, business, trade, or professional activity” -Article 2.1(a) Draft Order- in other words, using the definition of consumer and user provided in Article 3.1 of the rewritten text of the General Law for the Defence of Consumers and Users. This equivalence between passenger and consumer restricted the application of the then forthcoming alternative dispute resolution procedure for air passenger rights exclusively to those who held this status. 74 In this regard, PÉREZ MORIONES, A., “Hacia la consolidación de la resolución alternativa de conflictos…”, cit. 48 ARÁNZAZU PÉREZ MORIONES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==