Air Passenger Rights: Settling Disputes

Introduction

The significance and benefits of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for consumer issues are increasingly recognized not only by consumer organizations, national authorities, and European institutions but also by the business sector. ADR offers a practical solution for resolving disputes with traders, avoiding the need for lengthy court proceedings. It is known for its rapidity, low cost, and simplicity. Over recent years, the European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) has seen a steady rise in complaints within the air passenger rights (APR) sector. The presence of an effective ADR entity is crucial for achieving high levels of mutually satisfactory resolutions. This report aims to outline the current state of ADR in the APR sector and to develop recommendations for improvement.

The ECC-Net’s involvement in air passenger rights

The European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) has been in operation since 2005 with the objective of enhancing consumer trust in the single market. Co-funded by the European Commission (EC) and EU Member States, the network specializes in handling cross-border consumer complaints and providing feedback to national and EU stakeholders based on practical experience.

Since the implementation of the Montreal Convention and Regulation 261/2004, the ECC-Net has observed an increase in APR-related inquiries and challenges in resolving complaints. According to the network’s internal database, "IT-Tool," approximately 20% of its activities since 2010 have been related to APR issues. Significant events like the 2010 volcanic eruption in Iceland and subsequent airspace closure, and the 2012 insolvency wave, have influenced complaint volumes. However, not all APR complaints are linked to such exceptional circumstances.

The 2010 ash crisis provided a benchmark for comparing complaint handling by airlines across the EU, Iceland, and Norway. It revealed that only 31% of ECC-Net cases were resolved amicably, underscoring the need for improved ADR mechanisms. The crisis highlighted the benefits of ADR for all parties: consumers can resolve disputes without resorting to court; airlines can demonstrate responsiveness to customer concerns; and enforcement authorities can address consumer issues while balancing business interests.

Air passenger rights remain a hot spot

Despite the resolution of the ash cloud crisis, air passenger rights continue to be a significant area of cross-border consumer complaints. Many airlines' solutions fall short of fully adhering to legal provisions, including those established by the Montreal Convention, Regulation 261/2004, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rulings in the “Sturgeon” and “Nelson” cases. As noted in the 20th anniversary of the EU single market, passenger rights remain a challenge, with ongoing issues in enforcement and consumer information.

Consumers often seek redress beyond direct contact with airlines. While some court cases and the European Small Claims Procedure provide avenues for resolution, many consumers prefer a simpler, less formal process. ADR offers an effective alternative for resolving disputes without lengthy judicial procedures. However, enforcement authorities can only provide limited assistance, as not all handle individual complaints effectively.

CJEU Nelson case confirms sturgeon case law

On October 23, 2012, the CJEU ruled in the “Nelson” case, confirming its earlier decision in the “Sturgeon” case. The court ruled that passengers facing flight delays of three hours or more may be entitled to compensation similar to passengers whose flights are canceled, as stipulated in Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004. This decision reinforces the consumer’s right to compensation for significant flight delays and is welcomed by the ECC-Net as it strengthens consumers' confidence in claiming their rights.

With this enhanced legal backing, consumers are more likely to pursue claims. If initial claims are not satisfactorily addressed, ADR mechanisms offer a pathway to resolve disputes without legal conflicts. It is hoped that airlines will take consumer complaints seriously and work towards amicable resolutions, thereby fostering a more effective and consumer-friendly approach to air passenger rights.

Aim of the study

The ECC-Net, leveraging seven years of experience in managing cross-border consumer issues, aims to evaluate the current state of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in the Air Passenger Rights (APR) sector. Given the considerable variation in ADR practices across different countries, and the fact that ADR systems have not yet fully realized their potential, this study is intended to:

1. Assess the ADR landscape
   Provide an overview of the existing ADR entities and mechanisms available within the APR sector across the European Union, Iceland, and Norway. This will include examining how these entities operate and their effectiveness in resolving disputes.
2. Compare practices
   Analyze and compare the practices and effectiveness of ADR entities in different jurisdictions. Identify best practices and areas where ADR systems fall short in addressing consumer grievances in the APR sector.
3. Provide recommendations
   Develop suggestions to enhance the ADR system, aiming to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. This includes recommending ways to better coordinate ADR efforts with key stakeholders such as National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs), the ECC-Net, European institutions, airlines, and businesses within the travel sector.
4. Enhance coordination
   Propose strategies for better collaboration among all stakeholders involved in ADR processes. This includes improving communication and cooperation between ADR entities and other relevant organizations to create a more cohesive and consumer-friendly dispute resolution environment.
5. Support consumer interests
   Ensure that the recommendations support the interests of consumers by making the ADR process more accessible, transparent, and effective in resolving APR-related complaints.

By focusing on these objectives, the study aims to contribute to a more robust and harmonized ADR framework in the APR sector, ultimately leading to better outcomes for consumers and improved compliance with passenger rights regulations.

ADR schemes in the European Union, Iceland, and Norway

The analysis reveals a diverse landscape of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in the Air Passenger Rights (APR) sector across the European Union, Iceland, and Norway. The establishment and structure of ADR entities are influenced by each country's national context, including administrative organization, consumer representation schemes, and local habits. This study highlights the significant trends and outlines the current state of ADR entities handling APR cases.

Countries with no ADR for APR cases

Certain countries lack any ADR entities capable of handling APR disputes:

• Austria, Bulgaria, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands (since January 1, 2012, when the Consumer Complaint Board for Aviation ceased operations).
  
  In these countries, consumers must directly contact the airline or pursue court procedures to enforce their passenger rights, as no ADR options are available.

General ADR entities handling APR cases

Many EU countries and Iceland have ADR entities with general competence that include APR disputes. These countries include:

• Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark (Consumer Complaints Board), Estonia, Finland, Germany (Online-Schlichter), Greece, Hungary, Italy (RisolviOnline), Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, and Spain.

Specific Notes:

• In Sweden, a general ADR entity includes a travel department that handles APR cases.
• In Germany (Online-Schlichter), Hungary, Spain, and Portugal, ADR competence is region-specific.
• In some countries, ADR competence depends on the value of the complaint:
  • Cyprus, Denmark (Consumer Complaints Board), and Portugal have value limits for complaints.
  • The CACCL in Lisbon handles complaints under €5000 and is limited to the Lisbon district.
  • The Danish Consumer Complaints Board hears complaints with a minimum value of DKK 80 (€105) and an upper limit of DKK 100,000 (€13,400).
  • In Cyprus, the limit is €3000, and in Germany (SöP), it is €30,000.

ADR entities specific to the travel sector or APR disputes

Only two countries have ADR entities specifically for APR:

• Norway: An ADR exclusively competent in APR.
• Italy: An ADR for APR claims exists but only handles disputes against Alitalia, established by the airline.

In France, a service of the CAA provides an informal ADR entity for passengers.

ADR entities specialized in the travel sector

Six countries have ADR entities for the travel sector that also handle APR claims:

• Belgium, Denmark (Danish Travel Industry Complaints Board), France, Germany (SöP), Iceland, and Luxembourg.

Specific Requirements:

• In Belgium, the ADR can only intervene in package holiday disputes, including transport services within the package, but not flight-only cases.
• In Denmark, the Danish Travel Industry Complaints Board handles package holidays and transport services departing from Denmark by Danish companies. Flight-only complaints fall under the general Consumer Complaints Board's competence.
• The CLLV (Commission Luxembourgeoise des Litiges Voyage) in Luxembourg handles both package holidays and flight-only complaints.
• The SöP (Conciliation Body for Public Transport) in Germany manages disputes across the entire transport sector, including rail, ship, bus, and flights.
• In Iceland and France (since January 2012), ADRs in the travel sector include APR but can only intervene if the air carrier is a member of the trade associations that set up the ADR. For example, MTV (Médiation Tourisme et Voyage) in France handles claims against Air France but not foreign airlines, as only Air France is a member.

Conclusion

The ADR landscape in the APR sector varies widely across the European Union, Iceland, and Norway. Some countries lack ADR mechanisms entirely, while others have general or sector-specific ADR entities with varying scopes and limitations. This disparity highlights the need for improved coordination and harmonization of ADR practices to ensure consistent and effective consumer protection in the APR sector across these regions.

Area of intervention in APR cases

The ECC-Net has observed that while many ADR entities are not specialized in APR, they generally handle cases based on Regulation 261/2004, the Montreal Convention, or the "Sturgeon" case law. However, certain ADRs have limitations regarding the legal sources they can apply. ADR entities may base their decisions strictly on legal texts or include principles of fairness and equity in their deliberations.

Examples:

• The French ADR can manage cases where airlines did not apply relevant APR legal texts. While making decisions, it considers both legal texts and equity to propose compromises that might not fully align with legal compensation or refund limits but are acceptable to both parties.

Countries with APR legal source restrictions

• Denmark
  • Both the general ADR and the Danish Travel Industry Complaints Board only intervene based on a breach of contract but can base decisions on the Montreal Convention.
  • Regulation 261/2004 is handled by the Danish Transport Authority, but delays and cancellations can constitute a breach of contract.
• Latvia
  • Legal provisions can only be enforced by national courts.
  • The Consumer Rights Protection Centre (CRPC) considers only Regulation 261/2004 and cannot issue binding decisions for traders.
  • CRPC assists consumers by informing them about passenger rights, possible actions, receiving the airline’s explanations, and documentary evidence.
  • CRPC informs traders and consumers about the possibility of filing a complaint, its legal basis, and the potential for success in court.
  • The CRPC does not consider the Montreal Convention or "Sturgeon" and "Nelson" case law.

General ADR practices in most countries

• ADR entities in countries like Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden apply all relevant legal texts when handling consumer complaints.
• APR Source Not Applied by ADR
  • Denmark: Regulation 261/2004 (handled by the Danish Transport Authority)
  • Latvia: Montreal Convention, "Sturgeon" and "Nelson" case law

Conclusion

There is variability in how ADR entities across the European Union, Iceland, and Norway handle APR cases, with some having specific restrictions on the legal sources they can apply. This highlights the need for standardized practices to ensure consistent and effective consumer protection in APR cases.

Creation of ADR entities and financing of the system

The initiative behind the creation of an ADR entity and its funding is quite relevant in understanding why certain countries propose ADR entities with general competence while others offer specialized ADRs. It also allows for a better understanding of the decision-making process.

Usually, ADRs with general competence are created by public initiative (Ministry, public services, etc.), whereas specialized ADRs are normally and initially formed by private initiative (from traders and/or consumer associations) with occasional support from public authorities to maintain the service and guarantee its efficiency and independence.

Notification of an ADR

The European Commission has drawn up a list (http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/redress_cons/schemes_en.htm) of all the ADRs in every consumer sector that have been notified by the Member States as being in conformity with the Commission’s Recommendations 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC. These ADRs therefore respect the following criteria:

• Independence
• Impartiality
• Transparency
• Adversarial principle
• Effectiveness
• Legality
• Liberty
• Principle of representation
• Fairness

Being part of the main ADR entities in their respective countries, the ADRs with general competence are usually notified to the European Commission as being in conformity with the aforementioned recommendations. There is one exception: Cyprus has not yet notified its ADR to the Commission as it was created only recently.

Regarding specialized ADRs for the travel sector or APR, Alitalia’s Conciliation Board and the Icelandic ADR are not notified. Nevertheless, ECCs Italy and Iceland work with them regularly as these ADRs respect the EU recommendations on ADR. According to ECC Iceland, the Icelandic ADR would only need to make minor changes to be notified. The ADR set up by Alitalia is, for the moment, considered an experimental ADR by ECC Italy and DG SANCO. In France, MTV is not yet notified as it has been operational for only a few months and cannot yet be examined for compliance with the European Commission Recommendations. Besides the above-mentioned exceptions, all the other ADRs originating from private initiatives are notified.

ADR and/or NEB?

Article 16 of Regulation 261/2004 obligates each Member State to designate a “body responsible for the enforcement of this regulation”. The European Commission has published a list of these National Enforcement Bodies (NEB), nominated by each Member State of the European Union, Iceland, Norway (and Switzerland), which have the power to enforce Regulation 261/2004. Generally, Member States designate the National Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as NEB.

In accordance with the national administrative organization or the mission given to the NEB, some of these bodies are able to handle and enforce cases individually (for example, in Denmark). In other countries, the NEB is entitled to intervene only on behalf of a common interest and to enforce the Regulation according to this common objective only. The situation appears to be quite confusing for passengers when the NEB also offers a kind of ADR service for individual claims, such as the French NEB (DGAC), or when the ADR is also able to enforce the Regulation, such as CRPC in Latvia.

In France, the DGAC (Civil Aviation Authority) was designated as NEB. According to its mission as NEB, it has the power to enforce the Regulation and to sanction companies. Therefore, the DGAC can only intervene in the general interest of passengers and cannot enforce individual disputes. But the DGAC has also developed an ADR service that is able to handle individual claims, but strictly on an amicable basis and solely to help consumers receive a response from airlines concerning their claim. The DGAC, as ADR, does not propose dispute solutions or confirm the proper application of the Regulation. For consumers, the distinction between the different roles of the DGAC is not always clear: when contacting the DGAC, consumers often hope to get individual enforcement of their claim and do not understand the responses they receive, which are based on an amicable intervention.

Finland is quite an exception in the ADR landscape. It is the only country in which there is a general ADR competent for APR, which is also designated as a NEB. The tasks of the NEB in Finland are divided between three stakeholders:

• Consumer agency
  The Consumer Agency supervises compliance with consumer protection legislation and consumer rights in general. The Consumer Agency supervises, among other things, the marketing and contract terms of airlines operating in Finland. The Agency does not process individual disputes.
• Consumer disputes board
  The Board issues recommendations concerning individual disputes in Finland. However, the ADR does not have the authority to sanction airlines; that power resides solely with the Consumer Agency for the purposes of collective consumer protection.
• Finnish transport safety agency (Trafi)
  Trafi is responsible for supervising safety in air transport.

Traders' participation in the ADR procedure

One of the basic principles of ADR is that it is based on the goodwill of both parties—consumers and traders—to cooperate in finding an amicable solution to a dispute. Recourse to ADR is, in principle, not mandatory. However, in some ADR entities, traders have voluntarily agreed to the possibility of ADR and have committed to participating in any ADR procedure initiated by a consumer.

In six countries—Denmark (Consumers Complaints Board), Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden—the ADR's competence to rule is not dependent on the trader's acceptance to submit to an ADR procedure. The participation of traders in ADR entities seems to be closely linked to the origin of the scheme and its financing (see 1.3).

For example, in Belgium, Iceland, and Luxembourg, ADR entities were initially set up by a private initiative of travel agencies, not national airlines. Therefore, only the travel agencies or tour operators have agreed to participate in these schemes, which are also partially financed by these traders. In the case of Alitalia’s Conciliation Board, as the ADR was set up directly by the airline, the company has evidently committed to it, and the competence of the ADR is exclusively limited to cases involving Alitalia (or an airline of the group).

The French MTV was also created by a private initiative of travel agencies and tour operator federations, as well as the association of French air carriers. Thus, nearly the whole travel sector participates in this ADR entity and process. The German SöP typically handles complaints against its members, but it has successfully conciliated a number of cases with other airlines as well. A current legislative proposal aims to make participation in the conciliation procedure mandatory for all German airlines.

In most countries, ADRs deal with national companies. In Denmark, for example, the ADR (Consumer Complaints Board) can even handle complaints against foreign airlines.

Existence of written rules and basic principles of the ADR procedure

• A charter to organize the procedure
  As most of the ADRs (general or specific) are notified to the European Commission, these ADRs naturally have written rules of procedure or a legal text that organizes their activities and their relationship with consumers. This is true for Alitalia’s Mediator as well.
• Costs and fees
  Regarding fees, the majority of ADR entities are free of charge for consumers and traders regardless of the organizational background of the ADR. However, some ADRs require a fee from consumers, others from traders, and in rare cases, both parties must bear costs.
  
  In the following countries, the procedure is free of charge for consumers who only need to bear their own costs (copies, postal or communication fees, etc.): Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy (Alitalia), Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden.
  • In Belgium (50 € for conciliation/min. 100 € for arbitration) and Denmark (21 €/37 €), consumers must pay a submission fee, which is recovered if the consumer wins the case or the case is dismissed.
  • In Italy (RisolviOnline), the consumer must pay a fee depending on the value of the claim (starting at 25 €). The fee is due only if the trader agrees to participate in the proceeding.
  • In Hungary, there is no submission fee, but the consumer might pay justifiable costs of the proceeding if the case is lost.
  • In Cyprus, the consumer must pay a submission fee between 5 and 17 €, and if the case is lost, 85 to 170 € in arbitrator fees, depending on the value of the complaint.
  • In Norway, only the trader pays a fee for the mediation procedure (see box 3).
  • In Iceland, where the ADR is initiated by a private initiative (consumer association and carrier federation), both parties must pay a fee to participate in the procedure.

Regarding Alitalia’s Conciliation Board, as it is initiated by the airline, the costs are solely covered by the airline.

• Type of procedure: online dispute resolution (ODR) or hearings
  Most ADRs provide a distance procedure, especially for claims from foreign consumers. Usually, this is concluded in writing, and the parties do not have to be present at a hearing. The ADR will ask each party to present its position regarding the claim to form its opinion and propose a solution. In some cases, the ADR will ask a third party to present an expert’s opinion if necessary for a better evaluation of the case.
  
  In a few countries, a hearing is organized to deal with the case in the presence of both parties. In these countries (Estonia, Hungary), the ADR has a general competence and was initiated by public authorities. If a foreign consumer cannot be physically present at the hearing, the ECC of these countries can generally help the consumer to be represented.
• Opportunity for an ADR to be provided with access to expertise
  Most ADR entities have the opportunity to seek expertise and/or expert opinions to propose an adequate solution (except in the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany (Online-Schlichter), Italy (Alitalia), Luxembourg, Poland, Spain, and Sweden). Usually, an external organization (meaning that it is not an internal service of the ADR or the trader) is commissioned with the expertise.
  
  This is the case for ADR in Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal, and Norway. Often the ADR can contact the National Civil Aviation Body or the NEB to receive the analysis of an expert (for example, in Denmark (Consumer Complaints Board) and Norway). The Latvian CRPC can seek an opinion or information from any competent body, even abroad. In France, the MTV will ask the carrier for expertise, which will not be communicated to the consumer due to a confidentiality agreement between the ADR and the traders. In Belgium, the Commission for Travel can ask tour operators and travel agencies to provide expertise. Concerning Alitalia’s Conciliation Board, the procedure can be suspended to turn to the NEB for expertise.
• Duration of case handling
  The Charters set by ADR entities foresee a certain duration for handling the cases submitted for mediation or arbitration.
• Report of activity
  Most ADR entities draft an annual report providing statistics and the outcome of the ADR's work. The decisions of the ADRs are rarely published, and if they are, the identity of the parties is generally anonymized, with decisions often published on the ADR’s website rather than in the annual report.

Language and translation

For the majority of ADRs, the written rules of procedure do not provide the option to submit a complaint or handle a case in any language other than the official national language(s). However, a few ADRs do accept English for cases involving foreign consumers, or they may accept several other languages depending on their resources.

• In Belgium, France, Germany (Online-Schlichter), Poland, and Spain, submissions to the ADR can be made exclusively in the national language.
• In the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, and Hungary, the ADR procedure is generally conducted in the national language, but some ADRs may accept English (or German for Hungary).
• In Italy (Alitalia), Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Sweden, ADRs accept both the national language(s) and English (if the trader accepts submissions in English).
• In Denmark, the Consumer Complaints Board may accept cases filed in English or a Scandinavian language, though responses will be provided only in Danish.
• For the SöP in Germany, the official language is German, but the ADR can also handle cases in English and requests in French.
• In Iceland, both Icelandic and any other language agreed upon with the ADR are accepted.
• In Norway, the board may accept cases filed in English or a Scandinavian language and might provide a short summary of the decision in English. Generally, the ECC Norway ensures that the consumer ECC can understand the ruling.

Regarding translations of ADR decisions or communications into other languages, only three ADRs offer this service:

• In Finland, the ADR operates in Finnish and Swedish, but for cases under Regulation 261/2004, consumers can submit complaints in English, and the rulings will also be provided in English.
• RisolviOnline, the general Italian ADR established by the Milanese Chamber of Commerce, handles cases and provides answers in almost all EU languages. Thus, translations of decisions are usually unnecessary.
• The Court of Arbitration in Portugal can translate its decisions into English.

In most cases, foreign consumers face a language barrier when introducing or following their complaint. ADRs typically address their decisions to the involved parties, and consumers receive rulings in the ADR's language. The intervention of ECCs as facilitators is therefore very helpful and streamlines the process.

Participation of ECCs in the ADR process

The ECC-Net was established in 2005 through the merger of two existing networks: the Euroguichets, which served as consumer information centers since 1992, and the EEJ-Net, which focused on out-of-court settlements of consumer disputes and promoting ADR since 2001. Thus, ADR is an integral part of the ECC-Net's activities.

The ECC-Net is co-financed through grants from the Member States and the European Union. EU grants are provided based on a grant agreement signed by the European Commission and the host structures of the ECCs, which is approved by the Member State’s authority. These grant agreements include a Vademecum outlining the global objectives of the ECC-Net. Objectives 4 and 5 of the Vademecum mandate that ECCs assist consumers with disputes by determining appropriate ADR mechanisms, providing necessary information and assistance, facilitating access to ADR, and monitoring the ADR process. ECCs are also expected to promote and develop ADR in the Member States.

In practice, ECCs collaborate with ADR entities to resolve disputes. When an ADR has general competence and handles various types of consumer disputes, ECCs frequently transfer cases to such ADRs. Some ECCs are more directly involved in the ADR procedure. For instance:

• ECC Sweden can participate as an expert on the ADR board, though this is only in cases where ECC Sweden was not the referring party.
• The representative from ECC Estonia can attend hearings of cases referred by ECC and assist in completing the file to initiate the procedure.
• In Hungary, both the ECC and the consumer are represented by the case handler at hearings.

Overall, ECCs play a supportive and facilitative role in the ADR process, ensuring that consumers have access to appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms and that the ADR procedures are effective.

Binding aspect of ADR decisions

The binding nature of decisions made by ADR entities varies across different jurisdictions:

1. Cyprus and Portugal
   ADR decisions are binding on both parties. They can be enforced as court decisions.
2. Spain
   Arbitration board decisions have the same legal force as court judgments.
3. Denmark
   General ADR decisions are binding after 30 days if the trader does not respond. Non-compliance can be enforced by a bailiff and may result in public shaming. For the Danish Travel Industry Complaints Board, the decision can be used in court, but the judge is not bound by it.
4. Italy and Iceland
   ADR proposals are formalized in a protocol signed by both parties, constituting a contract. These can be enforced in court if the agreement is not adhered to.
5. Norway
   ADR decisions have significant impact and can be considered as a source of law by judges.
6. Belgium
   Arbitration decisions are binding on the trader, and no legal procedure is possible afterward.
7. Estonia
   ADR decisions are not binding. Parties can take the case to court if they disagree. Non-compliance can result in public blacklisting on the Consumer Protection Board's website.
8. Hungary
   ADR decisions are binding only if the trader has notified the ADR entity of their acceptance. If not accepted, the decision is a recommendation. Non-compliance with binding decisions can lead to enforcement actions in court, while recommendations may lead to publication of the case outcome.
9. Finland
   ADR decisions are recommendations and not binding. Significant decisions are published, and non-compliant traders may be listed on a black list by a consumer organization.
10. Sweden
    ADR decisions are influential. The consumer magazine "Råd & Rön" publishes names of traders who do not comply, providing a strong incentive for compliance.
11. Latvia
    Binding ADR decisions can be enforced if parties do not agree on a settlement, with compulsory execution and publication possible.
12. France
    ADR decisions by MTV are confidential and cannot be used in court unless both parties agree.

In some jurisdictions, ADR decisions can be used in court procedures, while in others, they remain non-binding or are simply recommendations.

Recommendations for ADR in the air passenger rights (APR) sector

Given the complexities and the rise in air travel complaints across Europe, it is crucial to improve the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in the APR sector. Here are some recommendations and best practices to enhance the ADR system:

1. Ensure full geographical coverage

• Objective
  Every EU Member State, along with Iceland and Norway, should have an ADR entity for the APR sector.
• Rationale
  Comprehensive geographical coverage ensures that all consumers have access to ADR services, which is especially important for cross-border air travel issues. This also aligns with the European Commission's proposal for a European ODR platform, which will refer consumers to the appropriate ADR entities.

2. Distinguish roles and cooperate

• Objective
  Clearly differentiate between ADRs and National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) to improve the understanding and accessibility of the system.
• Rationale
  NEBs focus on enforcement of regulations, while ADRs are designed to resolve disputes amicably. Clear distinctions will simplify the complaint process for consumers. Cooperation between ADRs and NEBs will enhance monitoring and ensure effective resolution of disputes.
• Example
  Similar sector-specific agencies exist in energy sectors, governed by Directives 2009/72/CE and 2009/73/CE, which could serve as a model.

3. Promote close collaboration

• Objective
  Foster close cooperation among ADRs, ECCs (European Consumer Centres), and NEBs.
• Rationale
  This collaboration will ensure a seamless process for consumers, facilitate information sharing, and provide access to necessary technical expertise. For instance, ECCs can help consumers in cross-border cases and ensure that ADRs have the technical details needed for case assessment.
• Best practice
  Regular meetings and communication channels should be established among these bodies to discuss cases, share insights, and update on regulatory changes.

4. Improve knowledge and expertise in ADR entities

• Objective
  ADR entities should have specialized knowledge in APR issues and EU regulations, such as the Montreal Convention.
• Rationale
  Understanding the specificities of air passenger rights and the legal framework is crucial for effective dispute resolution. For instance, the Swedish Konsument Ombudsman (KO) has demonstrated expertise in APR by representing consumers in court cases related to air passenger rights.

5. Ensure ADR is accessible and free of charge

• Objective: ADR should be a swift, accessible, and cost-free option for consumers.
• Rationale: To maintain ADR as a viable alternative to court procedures, it should be easily accessible and not impose financial burdens on consumers. This includes providing online platforms for filing complaints and updates on case status.

6. Enhance transparency and communication

• Objective
  Ensure that consumers are well-informed about the ADR process and their options.
• Rationale
  Clear communication helps consumers understand how to file complaints, what to expect during the process, and how decisions are made. This transparency builds trust and encourages more consumers to utilize ADR services.

7. Utilize technology for efficiency

• Objective
  Leverage technology to streamline ADR procedures and enhance accessibility.
• Rationale
  Digital tools can facilitate the submission of complaints, case tracking, and communication between consumers, ADRs, and traders. The upcoming European ODR platform should be integrated with national ADR systems for a unified approach.

8. Monitor and evaluate ADR effectiveness

• Objective
  Regularly assess the performance and effectiveness of ADR entities.
• Rationale
  Continuous evaluation helps identify strengths and areas for improvement, ensuring that ADR mechanisms remain effective and responsive to consumer needs.

Conclusion

By implementing these recommendations and adopting best practices, the ADR system in the APR sector can be significantly improved. This will enhance consumer trust, ensure fair treatment, and support the smooth functioning of the internal market for air transport across Europe.