14 4 See judgment of 28 July 2016, Verein für Konsumenteninformation (C‑191/15, EU:C:2016:612, paragraph 42).
15 5 See, respectively, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 1); Regulation (EU) 2021/782 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
29 April 2021 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (OJ 2021 L 172, p. 1); Regulation (EU)
No 1177/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 1); and Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 February 2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 1).
16 C‑570/19, EU:C:2021:664; ‘Irish Ferries’.
17 7 See paragraphs 143 and 145 of that judgment and the case-law cited.
18 8 See paragraphs 106 and 107 of that judgment and the case-law cited. See also the Commission White Paper of 28 March 2011 entitled ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’ (COM(2011) 144 final), in which the Commission stated that it was necessary to ‘develop a uniform interpretation of EU Law on passenger rights and a harmonised and effective enforcement, to ensure both a level playing field for the industry and a European standard of protection for the citizens’ (p. 23).
19 9 See paragraph 106 of that judgment. Concerning the interpretation of the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ used in Regulation No 1177/2010 on maritime transport, the Court noted the EU legislature’s intention to adopt ‘a uniform approach’, by integrating the Court’s case-law on the rights of air transport passengers.
20 0 The question referred does not concern the further compensation provided for in Article 12 of that regulation.
21 1 Emphasis added.
22 2 The Court refers here to the second sentence of recital 22 of Regulation No 261/2004 and to its case- law, particularly the judgments of 13 October 2011, Sousa Rodríguez and Others (C‑83/10, EU:C:2011:652,
paragraph 44), and of 31 January 2013, McDonagh (C‑12/11, EU:C:2013:43, paragraph 51).
23 3 Paragraph 36 of Ruijssenaars and Others, emphasis added.
24 4 See, to that effect, the Commission White Paper of 28 March 2011, entitled ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’ (COM(2011) 144 final), p. 23.
25 5 That is what distinguishes Regulation No 261/2004 from other regulations. For other modes of transport, the EU legislature requires the national body to be independent of the carrier or infrastructure manager in its organisation, funding decisions, legal structure and decision making. See, for example, the second subparagraph of Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1177/2010, Article 31(2) of Regulation 2021/782 and the second subparagraph of Article 28(1) of Regulation No 181/2011.
26 6 Ruijssenaars and Others (paragraph 31).
27 7 Irish Ferries (paragraph 118).
28 8 Ruijssenaars and Others (paragraph 32).
29 9 Ruijssenaars and Others (paragraph 30).
30 0 C‑354/18, EU:C:2019:637; ‘Rusu’ (paragraphs 28 and 34 and the case-law cited).
31 1 Irish Ferries (paragraph 118).
32 2 Rusu (paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
33 3 In Rusu, the Court held that ‘neither Article 7(1) of Regulation No 261/2004 nor that regulation taken as whole provides for the compensation of individual damage, inherent in the reason for travelling of the passengers concerned, redress for which requires a case-by-case assessment of the extent of the damage caused and can consequently only be the subject of compensation granted subsequently on an individual basis’ (paragraph 31).
34 4 See Ruijssenaars and Others (paragraph 33) and Rusu (paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
35 5 Rusu (paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
36 6 Irish Ferries (paragraphs 152 and 154).
37 7 See Commission Notice – Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and on Council Regulation (EC)
No 2027/97 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 C 214, p. 5) (Section 8 et seq.).
38 C‑139/11, EU:C:2012:741.
39 9 Paragraph 23 of that judgment, emphasis added.
40 0 Paragraph 25 of that judgment.
41 1 See, in that regard, the report prepared by the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of the European Commission, Kouris, S., ‘Study on the current level of protection of air passenger rights in the EU’, Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels, 2020, MOVE/B5/2018-541, paragraph 5.5 et seq., available at the following internet address: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f03df002- 335c-11ea-ba6e-01aa75ed71a1.
42 2 Those entities are designated under Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on consumer ADR) (OJ 2013 L 165, p. 63). In accordance with Article 1 thereof, the purpose of that directive is to ensure that consumers can, on a voluntary basis, submit complaints against traders using alternative dispute resolution procedures. See, to
that effect, judgments of 14 June 2017, Menini and Rampanelli (C‑75/16, EU:C:2017:457, paragraphs 39 and 40), and of 25 June 2020, Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände (C‑380/19, EU:C:2020:498, paragraph 26).
43 3 Such as the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Cyprus. See, in that regard, the notifications made by Member States pursuant to Article 16(1) of Regulation No 261/2004.
44 4 Such as the Republic of Estonia, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary and the Republic of Finland. By contrast, in the French Republic, for instance, the Direction générale de l’aviation civile (DGAC) (Directorate-General for Civil Aviation) is responsible for regulating air transport, for general supervision and for monitoring the implementation of EU law on the protection of air passengers. In
response to reports received from passengers, that body may take the necessary corrective measures. In cases of proven infringements, sanctions in the form of administrative fines may be imposed on air carriers which fail to comply with the obligations laid down in Regulation No 261/2004. However, that directorate does not individually monitor the reports sent to it and its input is independent of the handling of individual claims for compensation and reimbursement submitted to air carriers. To that end, passengers must bring an action before the court having jurisdiction, in accordance with the code de procédure civile (French Code of Civil Procedure), or bring the matter before the alternative dispute resolution body.
45 5 See, in that regard, the report prepared by the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of the European Commission, ‘Study on the EU Regulatory Framework for Passenger Rights. Comparative analysis of good practices: final report’, Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels, 2021, Section 4.60 et seq., available at the following internet address: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/afa2493d-1b4e-11ec-b4fe-01aa75ed71a1.
46 6 With the exception of Regulation No 261/2004, the other regulations allow Member States to designate more than one national body.
47 7 See, for example, Article 31(1) of Regulation 2021/782 and Article 14(1) of Regulation No 1107/2006.
48 8 See footnote 42.