THE Belgian consumer
protection organisation
Test Aankoop is taking
legal action against
Brussels Airlines for its noshow
rules. The organisation
says it is unfair to penalise
travellers for missing one leg
of their journey by refusing
them boarding for the rest of
the trip.
Test Aankoop cites an
example where one client
had a ticket Brussels-MaltaMunich-Berlin-Brussels.
He missed the flight from
Munich to Berlin as a result
of a strike, and decided
to take the train instead.
However, the airline refused
to let him board the last
leg of his trip from Berlin to
Brussels.
Patrycja Gautier,
Enforcement Officer at
BEUC, the European
Consumer Organisation
explains: “For years we
have been pushing for a
ban of no-show clauses in
airline contracts. It is high
time that the European
Union took action to protect
consumers from these unfair
and unjustified contract
terms.”
The European ban of
such clauses was already
(partially) proposed by the
European Commission as
part of a proposal to revise
the Air Passenger Rights
Regulation (EU Regulation
no 261/2014) but the
proposal was blocked by EU
member states.
Several EU member
state courts have already
partially prohibited the use
of the no-show clauses. For
example, German (highest
court), Austrian (highest
court), Spanish and Italian
courts have ruled (partially)
that those clauses are unfair
contract terms.
They have based their
reasoning on the following
points:
yThe loss of the entire
ticket as a result of the
choice not to use part
of it is disproportionate
and lacks plausible
justification;
ySuch clauses create a
significant imbalance
between the consumer
and the airline in that
the consumer does not
receive any proportionate
or additional benefit for the
curtailment of their right to
not travel;
ySuch clauses constitute an
impermissible ‘surprise’
for consumers, since no
justification for denied
boarding would exist.
However, for the time
being, no policy or legislative
solution is in sight.
