The complaint will also be inadmissible if any of the reasons listed in Article 10.1 of the Order apply. Specifically: i) if the prior complaint has not been submitted to the airline or airport operator; ii) if the complaint is manifestly unfounded or concerns matters outside the scope defined in Article 2; iii) if the complaint has been resolved or is pending before a judicial body or before an arbitration system for consumer disputes or the arbitration system for resolving complaints and claims regarding equal opportunities, non-discrimination, and accessibility due to disability, unless the judicial or arbitration procedure has been suspended as a result of the complaint the passenger wishes to submit to the Agency; and iv) if the complaint is submitted to the Agency more than one year after the prior complaint was submitted to the airline or airport operator or their customer service. Thus, the Order strictly adheres to the content of Article 18.1 of Law 7/2017, which lists the reasons for inadmissibility, with the caveat that no other reasons are acceptable. However, the practical difficulty of verifying the third reason for inadmissibility arises. It is unlikely that AESA could know whether the dispute has been resolved or raised before a judicial body or the aforementioned accredited entities. If any of the reasons for inadmissibility apply, AESA will declare the complaint inadmissible through a reasoned decision, which must be notified to the user within twenty-one calendar days of receiving the complaint -Article 10.2 of the Order-. However, the Agency must review its decision if the passenger proves that the reasons for inadmissibility do not apply. The passenger has one month from the notification of the decision to request this review. The deadline for deciding on the review is one month, after which, if no decision has been made by AESA, the passenger can consider the complaint rejected by administrative silence -Article 10.3 of the Order-. However, Article 10.4 of the Order expressly allows the passenger to submit the complaint again once the cause of inadmissibility has been remedied. Consequently, it is likely more practical for the passenger to directly use this option if the complaint is inadmissible, rather than request a review of the AESA decision, mainly because the review might be dismissed due to administrative silence. In the extrajudicial dispute resolution procedure, the parties may appear without a lawyer or legal advisor. This is most likely the case for passengers in the vast majority of instances. However, if the parties intend to use legal assistance, they must notify AESA within three working days of submitting the complaint -for the passenger- or receiving it -for the airline or airport operator- as set out in Article 13.1 of the Order. However, this prior notification requirement conflicts 56 ARÁNZAZU PÉREZ MORIONES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==