Right to reimbursement or re-routing
- Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:
(a) - reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant - a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;
(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or
(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.
- The language of the directive stated by the European regulator - passengers shall be offered the choice between - establishes a clear obligation to offer the passenger a choice between receiving a refund and receiving the replacement ticket. The formulation of the European regulation is of great importance in our case,
We know that Israeli airlines are part of the international community of flight service providers. I am therefore of the opinion that it is appropriate to apply in the present case the presumption of interpretive compatibility, according to which Israeli law must be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the accepted international norms in the field of international civil aviation, as long as there is no explicit contradiction between them and Israeli law.
The importance of the presumption of interpretive compatibility in the field of aviation law was emphasized by the Vice President S. Jubran:
"This presumption has important implications for the issue before us. As I will explain shortly, with regard to aviation services in general, and to the consumption of aviation services in particular, there are international norms that need to be addressed in the framework of the implementation of the presumption of interpretive adjustment. Within the framework of these norms there is a system of international treaties and agreements, legislation and case law from comparative law, and more" (Zemach case, at paragraph 67).
- Interim Summary: Section 6(a)(2) of the Aviation Services Law imposes an active duty on a flight organizer and operator to inform a passenger whose flight has been canceled and that he has the right to choose between restitution and an alternative flight ticket.
Exemplary Compensation Award
- After we know that there is an active duty to offer the passenger such a choice, and that this duty is derived from what is stated in section 6(a)(2) of the Aviation Services Law, we must address the second question - is it possible to award exemplary compensation for the breach of the said duty?
- Section 11 of the Aviation Services Law authorizes the court to award exemplary damages as detailed below:
- (A) The court may award compensation to a passenger who has been issued a flight ticket independent of the damage (in this section - exemplary compensation), in an amount not exceeding ILS 12,240, if it finds that one of the following was knowingly done:
- Flight Operator or Organizer -
(a) did not give benefits to a passenger who refused to transport him, in contravention of the provisions of section 5;