accessibility due to disability, including the possibility of using this system and the institution’s website80. This information obligation is separate from the general information obligation specified in Article 5 of the Order. It must only be fulfilled if the prior complaint has not been answered or has not fully satisfied the passenger, and its content is broader. Finally, it is worth emphasising that the provision of such a long period for submitting the prior complaint, combined with the subsequent period for submitting a complaint to AESA -six years in total- does not benefit any of the parties involved in the procedure. Airlines and airport operators are placed in an uncertain position, which is at odds with the legal certainty every entrepreneur needs. But it does not favour the passenger either81. This is because the suspension or interruption of the expiration and limitation periods for actions only occurs with the submission of the complaint to the Agency -Article 12 of the Order- not with the submission of the prior complaint to the airline or airport operator. Therefore, if the passenger exhausts the five-year period set for the prior complaint, they will be unable to pursue judicial action, as the claims will have already expired. 2.3. Principles of the procedure Article 7.1 of the Order reiterates the statement made in Article 8 of Law 7/2017, stating that the procedure regulated therein adheres to the principles of independence, impartiality, transparency, effectiveness and equity82. The procedure is free of charge for both parties, although each must bear the costs of any evidence they have proposed -Article 7.2.a) of the Order-. This assumption of costs has raised concerns among some doctrinal sectors, as it does not seem to align well with Article 11 of Law 7/201783. However, in our view, this misalignment will not have significant practical consequences, as, in 80 However, as previously noted, these arbitration systems are not fully aligned with the alternative dispute resolution procedure before AESA. 81 See also RUEDA VALDIVIA, R., “Orden TMA/201/2022, de 14 de marzo…”, cit., pp. 59-60. 82 For an analysis of AESA’s compliance with these principles, consult 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., pp. 60-65; and 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. 156-160. 83 See also AGÜERO ORTIZ, A., “La resolución alternativa de conflictos…”, cit., pp. 97-98; or 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. 64. 51 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ADR IN PASSENGERS AIR TRANSPORT
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==