Unlike the late John Hughes, I was given the opportunity for a sequel to my recent article following the recent ruling by the European Court of Justice in the case of Krijgsman v Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij on 11th May.
In this case the court was asked for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament following the cancellation of Mr Krijgsman’s flight and the airline’s refusal to pay compensation to Mr Krijgsman.
Mr Krijgsman booked a return flight from Amsterdam Schiphol (Netherlands) to Paramaribo (Surinam), operated by SLM via a travel agency. The outbound flight was scheduled to depart on 14 November 2014 at 15.15. On 9 October 2014, SLM informed the agency that that flight had been cancelled. On 4 November 2014, Mr Krijgsman received an email from the agency informing him that his outbound flight had been rescheduled for 15 November 2014 at 15.15. On 20 December 2014, Mr Krijgsman filed a claim for compensation from SLM. That claim was rejected on 5 March 2015 on the ground that the information relating to the change to the date of departure had been communicated to Gate1 website on 9 October 2014.
On 12 June 2015, Mr Krijgsman again sought payment from SLM of the flat-rate sum of EUR 600 specified in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004. That claim was rejected on 3 September 2015. He then raised the case in court and it found its way to the ECJ.
Mr Krijgsman was successful and the court decided that it was the airline’s responsibility to notify the passenger directly and it was not sufficient to simply advise the travel agency.
Should this be something that affects you then we are happy to assist you with seeking compensation from your airline. Please contact us online by clicking here or speak to a member of our specialist team on 0333 222 1855.