This week’s Compensation Clinic comes from a reader’s canceled TAP ticket 7 months in advance and a recent SCJ ruling that these are also eligible for the 600 euro compensation per EC 261/2004.
Remember that you can email us, send a message via Facebook, or use Twitter to include photos too. We’ll try to cover Compensation Clinic cases here regularly.
You can access TAP here.
Reader’s Case:
In short: booked AMS-LIS-BCN-SIN with TAP/SQ in March 2024, for a trip 8 months later. TAP cancelled my booking 2 weeks after the confirmation (so about 7 months before the scheduled flight), but did NOT cancel the flights. TAP directly refunded me the amount paid, but did not inform me on my rights.
Interestingly, this counts as denied boarding. Even though the booking cancellation happened 7 months before the first flight. The requirement to be ‘in time at the airport for check-in’ does not apply, if the airline lets a passenger with a confirmed booking know in advance that he/she cannot fly (recent ruling of ECJ). Since TAP was unwilling to pay financial compensation, I complained with the Dutch Civil Aviation. They confirm I have a valid case and helped me getting €600 financial compensation. One week later, TAP indeed paid this amount to me.
The second part would be that TAP decided to refund me, but that I should have had the option to take an alternative flight. I’m now requesting TAP to rebook me on a future flight (in lieu of the refund paid).
This must be the competitively priced business class fare that we covered, and I even flew without any issues:
Airfare of the Day -Business Class- SINGAPORE AIRLINES / TAP Singapore to London from $988 OW
Notice from the Netherlands EC 261/2004 Enforcement Body:
Subject: Regarding Your Complaint Against TAP Air Portugal
Date: 12 February 2025 at 16:31:22 CET
Dear Mr. NAME,
You have submitted a complaint about TAP Air Portugal regarding a possible violation of the European Passenger Rights Regulation (EC 261/2004). I have reviewed your complaint and concluded that there is indeed a case of denied boarding as mentioned in the regulation. Your complaint is valid.
My judgment on your complaint.
You have resubmitted this complaint, and I have been able to pose further questions to TAP. TAP responded that they did indeed cancel your booking due to internal communication problems with Singapore Airlines’ systems. I pointed out to TAP that, based on recent case law, this is considered a denied boarding that grants rights under Regulation 261/2004.
TAP has since confirmed that they will comply with the compensation obligation. They will contact you personally about this.
More Information
More information about passenger rights can be found on our website on the Air Passenger Rights page. For contact with the ILT, see: www.ilent.nl/contact. When contacting by phone about your report, please have your registration number on hand.
We trust that this provides you with sufficient information.
The recent case law that the ruling here refers to is:
Summary:
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a judgment on 26 October 2023, addressing the interpretation of certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, which establishes compensation and assistance for passengers affected by denied boarding, flight cancellations, or long delays. The case involved a dispute between a passenger, FW, and LATAM Airlines regarding compensation for a denied boarding incident.
- Background: FW booked a flight from Frankfurt to Madrid with LATAM Airlines. LATAM informed FW that she had been pre-emptively denied boarding on the return flight for not taking the outbound flight. Although LATAM refunded part of the ticket cost, FW sought additional compensation for denied boarding under Regulation 261/2004.
- Core Issues: The key legal issues were whether a passenger could claim compensation for denied boarding when the airline had informed the passenger in advance that boarding would be denied and whether the exception to compensation for cancellations (if informed two weeks in advance) applied to pre-emptive denials of boarding.
Court’s Judgment:
- Pre-emptive Denial of Boarding: The Court ruled that passengers pre-emptively informed that they will be denied boarding should be compensated, even if they did not present themselves for check-in or boarding. This is because the intent of the regulation is to provide high protection for passengers, and requiring the passenger to present themselves for boarding in such situations would be unnecessary.
- Applicability of Cancellation Exceptions to Denied Boarding: The Court determined that the compensation exceptions under Article 5(1)(c)(i) (which relates to flight cancellations) do not apply to pre-emptively denied boarding. Although a passenger might be informed of the denial more than two weeks before the flight, the situation is not equivalent to a flight cancellation, and therefore, the right to compensation for denied boarding remains applicable.
Analysis:
- Legal Interpretation: The Court’s ruling emphasizes the principle of passenger protection and the need to interpret EU regulations broadly in favor of passengers. The requirement for passengers to present themselves for check-in is deemed unnecessary in cases of pre-emptive denial of boarding, as the purpose of the regulation is to mitigate passenger inconvenience without requiring them to undergo a redundant process.
- Consistency in Legal Framework: The decision underscores the difference between flight cancellations and denied boarding. While cancellations may allow for exceptions, denied boarding cases are treated separately, ensuring that passengers are consistently protected, regardless of how early they are informed of the denial.
- Impact on Passengers and Airlines: This ruling enhances passenger rights by preventing airlines from avoiding compensation in cases of pre-emptive denial of boarding. It ensures that passengers are not left disadvantaged merely due to early notification, aligning with the broader objectives of Regulation 261/2004, which is to reduce inconvenience for travelers caused by flight disruptions.
This judgment reflects the European Court’s commitment to providing clear and fair compensation for passengers, ensuring uniformity in the application of passenger rights across EU member states.
Reader’s Communication With TAP:
Purchase
Cancellation
Compensation Denial
Compensation Approved
Our Previous TAP Case:
Reader Question: TAP Air Portugal Ticket Cancellation & Currency Loss?
Conclusion
This ECJ ruling is significant and affects quite a few of us. Airlines try to leave dealing with cancellations weeks and sometimes months in advance our problem, and their (airlines) only course of action is to refund the payment, when they should rebook.
The ECJ ruling here states that this would be considered denied boarding.
If you follow the same logic, the airline, TAP, would be obliged to rebook you between the same origin and destination airports in the same class of service.
TAP cannot blame “communication” issues between them and Singapore Airlines for denying a fare-paying passenger.
