Order-103. It has been justifiably criticised that delays in the various procedural steps may lead to exceeding the ninety days set for adopting a decision104. Furthermore, if the deadline expires without a decision being notified, the passenger’s complaint will be deemed rejected -Article 17.4 of the Order-. We know that the decision is binding on the airline -Articles 7.2.c) and 18.1 of the Order-. Therefore, the airline must comply, though it has the right to challenge the decision in the competent court -Articles 7.2.c), 18.1, and 18.3 of the Order-. The Order includes certain provisions aimed at reinforcing compliance. On the one hand, the airline must send proof of compliance to AESA as soon as it occurs, also indicating whether it has challenged the decision in court -Article 18.1 of the Order-. On the other hand, if one month passes from the notification of the decision without the airline complying, the passenger can request its enforcement by filing an enforcement claim in court -Article 18.2 of the Order-. Additionally, AESA can initiate an administrative sanctioning procedure based on Article 45 bis LSA, where non-compliance and delayed or defective compliance105 with AESA’s decisions regarding passenger claims under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 are considered infringements106. IV. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Passenger air transport is an activity that generates intense conflict. Despite this, none of the alternatives offered by our legal system until recently provided effective protection for passengers affected by any type of incident that infringes their rights. On the one hand, filing a lawsuit in court107 is a challenging path 103 This is also the solution envisaged for consumer arbitration: a period of ninety calendar days to issue and notify the award to the parties, with the possibility of a reasoned extension in case of special complexity, which cannot exceed the period provided for resolving the dispute. 104 As noted by AGÜERO ORTIZ, A., “La resolución alternativa de conflictos…”, cit., pp. 105-106; BLANCO SÁNCHEZ, M.ª J., “Aproximación a recientes actuaciones en materia de resolución alternativa de litigios de los usuarios de transporte aéreo: Orden Ministerial TMA/201/2022”, 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. 50; or RUEDA VALDIVIA, R., “Orden TMA/201/2022, de 14 de marzo…”, cit., p. 65. 105 It will exist if compliance occurs after the passenger files a claim for enforcement with the competent court to hear it -Article 45.3 LSA-. 106 As RUEDA VALDIVIA, R., “Orden TMA/201/2022, de 14 de marzo…”, cit., p. 69, points out, the provision is silent about non-compliance with decisions issued by AESA regarding infringements of Regulation No. 1107/2006, which, in their view, is likely a simple oversight by the legislator. 107 It must be noted that Article 86 bis of the Organic Law 6/1985, of 1 July, on the Judiciary, as amended by Organic Law 7/2022, of 27 July, states that Commercial Courts are not competent to deal with issues under Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, which imposed a heavy workload on these courts. 58 ARÁNZAZU PÉREZ MORIONES
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==