1. On 15 April 2010, because aircraft risks most of the European airspace was closed down due to the eruption of the Icelandic volcano, Eyjafjallajkull. Denise McDonagh, had reserved a flight from Faro to Dublin for 17 April 2010, was cancelled by an unexpected event as discussed above and did not resume until 22 April 2010 thus she reached Dublin on the 24 of April 2010.
Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "EU Law on Air travel" essay for you whith a 15% discount.Create order
On 17 to 24 April 2010, she was stranded in Faro and spent £1129. 41 on food and lodging. Since, Ryanair failed to provide her care under Article 5 and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 during this period. She claimed the expenditures to Ryanair, which argued that the event of this spring 2010 go beyond the meaning of extraordinary circumstances as states in Regulation. The claimant brought a case in Dublin Metropolitan District Court, due to uncertainties, as to whether the obligation in providing care are limited under circumstances like at issues. The national court request a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU to the Court of Justice. The issues referred were, firstly, whether the closure of the airspace due to volcanic eruption still falls under the notion of extraordinary circumstances of the regulation or went beyond? If yes, is liability for providing care in such event under Article 5 and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 excluded? Secondly, is unexpected event like the Icelandic volcano eruption comprised a temporal and monetary limit implied into the care obligations? Finally, in case of negative answers in both above issues, did the regime violates the doctrine of proportionality and non-discrimination and the principle of an equitable balance of interests in the Montreal Convention and the Article 16 and 17 of the charter? 2. Firstly, the court just like the Advocate General turned that the expression extraordinary circumstances is not defined under EU law and that consideration is for its everyday language. Next the court like Advocate General recognized no separate category of particularly extraordinary event beyond the term of extraordinary circumstances which would exempt Ryanair from the obligations under regulation.In Sturgeon and Others, the court states that the regulation need to maintain a high level of protection whatever unexpected events causing difficulties to air transport. Similarly, the Advocate General established that obligations, to provide care under Regulation is necessary to air passengers whatever cancelled the flight. Hence, court like Advocate General finds that the spring 2010 event falls within an extraordinary circumstances thus not releasing Ryanair from its obligation under Regulation. Next, the court like the Advocate General established that under regulation no limitation exists, either temporal or monetary for providing care to passengers whose flight are cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the requirements for providing care to passengers who is awaiting for their flight re-routing is imposed. The court, like Advocate General,
We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper