Finland’s Consumer Ombudsman has decided to take Finnair to Market Court for unlawfully rejecting air passenger claims based on EC 261/2004 on dubious grounds, which we have reported multiple times here on LoyaltyLobby and that are widely known among the traveling public.
Finnair has denied compensation claims for flights taken more than 2 months ago, claiming that these must be filed timely and referencing some Finnish “laws” and rulings in their responses to consumers that don’t exist.
You can access Finnair here.
Finnair is bound by the EC 261/2004 regulation, which grants passengers monetary compensation and a Duty to Care when the airline fails to transport them in a timely manner, cancels their flight, and/or rebooks them.
This law also applies if the airline’s employees strike or engage in work to rule, as is currently the case with Finnair’s pilots, which has resulted in hundreds of canceled flights over the past three months.
Based on our observation, Finnair has used different criteria for processing these EC 261/2004 claims based on whether the claimant is in Finland or elsewhere. Finland’s Enforcement Body cannot force the airline to follow its rulings, and Finnair has frequently decided not to pay these claims, placing the airline on the consumer ombudsman’s “black list” of companies.
Consumer Ombudman’s Press Release (Translated from Finnish):
Finnair rejects compensation claims as late without valid grounds – Consumer Ombudsman seeks injunction from Market Court
The Consumer Ombudsman demands that the Market Court prohibit Finnair Plc, under threat of a fine of EUR 300,000, from rejecting passengers’ compensation claims because the passengers have not submitted claims within two months of the flight date. This is the first representative action that the Consumer Ombudsman has brought before the Market Court.
The minimum rights of air passengers in certain flight error situations have been established by an EU regulation. A passenger may be entitled to a fixed monetary compensation in euros, for example due to a flight delay.
However, the regulation does not specify the time limit within which an air passenger must submit a claim for compensation to the air carrier. This is therefore determined by the national legislation of each Member State. However, Finnish law does not contain any provisions on the time limit that must be observed in order for a passenger to retain the right to compensation under the Regulation.
Finnair requires consumers to file compensation claims within a reasonable time, which in Finnair’s view is two months. According to Finnair, this is an obligation imposed on consumers under Finnish law. However, Finnair has not been able to clarify in more detail to the Consumer Ombudsman which law the claim is based on.
According to the Consumer Ombudsman, Finnair rejects consumers’ compensation claims on vague grounds, referring to national legislation, the Consumer Protection Act or decisions of the Supreme Court. Despite Finnair’s arguments, there is no basis in the law for claims to be rejected on the basis that two months have passed.
CONSUMER OMBUDSMAN KATRI VÄÄNÄNEN
“The practice of rejecting claims followed by Finnair’s customer service is an example of how a trader who is financially and cognitively stronger than the consumer seeks to unilaterally and without legal basis dictate under what conditions the consumer is entitled to compensation.”
Representative action suspends the statute of limitations on debt
The Consumer Ombudsman is demanding that the Market Court prohibit Finnair’s contractual terms practice, as it is contrary to the Consumer Protection Act. This is the first time that the Consumer Ombudsman has brought a case to the Market Court as a representative action. The representative action has been possible since summer 2023.
Unlike a regular injunction action, the initiation of a representative action in the Market Court suspends the statute of limitations on the claim that is the subject of the proceedings. The Consumer Ombudsman has specified in the action which consumer group is affected.
By suspending the limitation period of the debt, the aim is to ensure that the consumers in question are not prevented from claiming compensation in a general court because the limitation periods have expired during the market court proceedings.
Conclusion
This situation with Finnair is absurd, and it is difficult to understand why it has been allowed to continue for so long.
The consumer arm of the Finnish government is taking the government’s majority-owned airline to court for violating the laws Finland has enacted.
The airline has not paid valid claims for passengers in Finland, while it has for those filing claims elsewhere, where there are better enforcement opportunities for consumers to collect on claims that National Enforcement Bodies have decided in their favor.
Finland must have saved tens of millions of Euros since the law was elected by denying valid claims, but other airlines have also engaged in this practice.
