principle, proving the breach will usually not require additional evidence beyond the documentation accompanying the complaint. Moreover, a similar solution is applied in consumer arbitration, although the arbitral body is authorised to distribute the costs differently if bad faith or recklessness is found84. As mentioned earlier, the report issued by AESA as the body responsible for enforcing regulations is non-binding, meaning its actions are not very effective, at least in the passenger’s interest85. On the other hand, in the context of alternative dispute resolution, the nature of the acceptance -whether voluntary or mandatory- and the character of the procedure -whether binding or non-binding- varies depending on the party. For passengers, acceptance is voluntary and the outcome non-binding; for airlines, acceptance is mandatory and the result, binding; and for airport operators who have previously adhered, acceptance is mandatory and the result, non-binding. For other operators, acceptance is voluntary and the outcome non-binding. The current text introduces a variable that did not exist in the proposed text, where the procedure was voluntary and non-binding for all airport operators -Article 8.2 of the Draft Order-. Currently, the procedure is mandatory for airport operators who have previously adhered to it, with formal communication to the Agency required -Article 7.2.d) in conjunction with Article 2.4.a) of the Order-. For airport operators who accept the procedure voluntarily, acceptance is presumed if they do not explicitly reject participation after receiving the complaint submitted by the passenger to AESA -Article 2.4.b) of the Order-. However, in all cases and regardless of the nature of acceptance, the procedure remains non-binding for all airport operators. It is worth noting that we previously expressed disagreement with the different treatment of airlines and airport operators concerning the acceptance of the procedure and the binding nature of the result86. This consideration must still be maintained: fully, regarding non-adhering airport operators, and partially, 84 The inclusion of this exception in the current regulation has been proposed by AGÜERO ORTIZ, A., “La resolución alternativa de conflictos…”, cit., p. 111; or RUEDA VALDIVIA, R., “Orden TMA/201/2022, de 14 de marzo…”, cit., pp. 57-58. 85 See our observations above. 86 In this regard, PÉREZ MORIONES, A., “Hacia la consolidación de la resolución alternativa de conflictos…”, cit. Subsequently, this has also been understood by 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., p. 159; AGÜERO ORTIZ, A., “La resolución alternativa de conflictos en el sector de los derechos de los pasajeros aéreos”, Revista CESCO de Derecho de Consumo, nº 41, 2022, pp. 99 y 100; or RUEDA VALDIVIA, R., “Orden TMA/201/2022, de 14 de marzo…”, cit., pp. 55-56 y 68. 52 ARÁNZAZU PÉREZ MORIONES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==