Latest news with #EuropeanCourtOfJustice
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
How the EU's biggest air passengers' rights shake-up in a generation will affect you
Flight cancellations, long delays and overbooking resulting in passengers being denied boarding: for decades, airlines could cause all kinds of problems without regard for travellers. In many parts of the world, they still can. But in 2004 the European Union announced Regulation 261 – which transformed air passengers' rights rules across Europe. It stipulated a duty of care for disrupted travellers and provided cash compensation for short-notice cancellations and overbooking. Three things happened over the following years: A series of increasingly eccentric European Court of Justice rulings distorted the original intentions of the rules and made impossible demands of Airlines Claims firms sprang up to extract cash from carriers for delayed flights Airlines realised they could ignore many of the rules, particularly on passenger care, with impunity The EU is now in the process of revising the regulation. The European Parliament and Council of the European Union have agreed fresh proposals that try to clear up some of the many anomalies in the law. But the proposals could yet be amended, and there is no clear indication when they will take effect. These are the key questions and answers. In the beginning … The EU said airlines must improve their attitude to passengers. Cancellations, delays and overbooking are common. Brussels decreed that airlines making short-notice cancellations should pay compensation – unless 'extraordinary circumstances' were responsible. The amount: between €250 and €600, depending on the length of the flight. The same applied to airlines denying boarding to passengers because they had sold too many tickets. Cash payouts comprise one half of the rules. The other half is to do with passenger care in the event of disruption – requiring meals and, if necessary, accommodation to be provided until the journey begins. Airlines must get the traveller to their destination as soon as possible, including on rival carriers if need be. What happened next? Many airlines ignored at least some of the rules, for example: Neglecting the first rule of the rights register, which is: tell people their rights Insisting passengers could only be rebooked on the carrier's own services Not providing accommodation for passengers stranded at airports At the same time, an industry of claims handlers sprang up – fighting for compensation in return for about one-third of the payout. A series of test cases came up with some surprising conclusions, such as that a three-hour delay constitutes the same degree of harm to a passenger as a cancellation, and therefore deserves identical compensation if the airline is responsible. This led to all kinds of passenger-unfriendly outcomes, such as airlines shuffling fleets to delay multiple flights by less than three hours rather than having one flight Another case concluded that if a pilot tragically died in service and a flight was delayed or cancelled, the carrier should pay compensation for failing to have spare crew everywhere it flew. What is proposed? Compensation The EU accepts that initial compensation rates were ridiculously high. Inflation has halved their value in the past two decades, but there is no attempt to keep up with general price rises. In fact, payouts will be cut for many passengers – except for those on the shortest flights. Flights up to 1,500km: Now €250, future €300 Flights 1,500-3,500km: Now €400, future €300 Flights over 3,500km: Now €600, future €500 The length of the delay will also rise before a pay-out is made: Flights up to 3,500km: now three hours, future four hours Flights over 3,500km: now four hours (with half- compensation after three hours), future six hours In a bid to increase the proportion of passengers claiming compensation, airlines must 'provide the passenger with a pre-filled form' to help them get the payout. Airlines' excuses 'Extraordinary circumstances' are excuses that allow airlines to dodge compensation payouts, though not the duty of care. They will be more clearly specified so that: Airlines will no longer be expected to have pilots and cabin crew stationed at all their destinations in case a crew member falls ill or dies Strikes among airline staff in protest against government decisions (eg on pensions or retirement age) no longer require compensation to be paid Other key changes The duty of care will be limited to three nights accommodation; cases that are longer than this are rare. No-show outbound should not lead to cancellation of whole itinerary – eg Air France passenger from Manchester to Paris who doesn't take the first leg should still be able to fly back. Airlines can claim redress for financial damage from third parties that trigger a duty of care – eg the Heathrow fire, which cost carriers up to £100 million. Greenland swerves compensation payouts due to 'particularly harsh meteorological conditions, and is characterised by very low population density and the remoteness of its populated places'. Will the UK follow suit? It will have to, or there will be some irrational outcomes – for example on an Amsterdam-London flight operated by an EU-registered aircraft, the rules would be different from a UK aircraft. Since easyJet has both kinds of planes, and deploys them on this route, the entitlement to compensation could hinge on the registration – causing yet more passenger confusion.
Irish Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Letters to the Editor, May 22nd: On Gaza, fox hunting and losing your keys
Sir, – Ireland has been outspoken in criticising the slaughter in Gaza, but words are not enough. International and EU law not only allows Ireland (and other EU member states) impose an immediate trade embargo on all Israeli imports but arguably requires EU states to do so. That a majority of EU member states have agreed 'to review' the EU Israel Trade Agreement is a step but not sufficient. The slaughter continues. Each member state must take action immediately. The EU cannot ignore the ICJ rulings on the actions of Israel, and in effect indirectly fund this war by supporting the economy of Israel. The EU buys more than 30 per cent of all Israeli exports and the immediate cessation would have impact that might save thousands of lives. The argument that decisions on trade are the exclusive competence of the EU Commission is subject to exceptions. READ MORE The general prohibition on restricting imports from other EU member states is subject to article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which allows restrictions justified on grounds of 'public policy'. There are already decisions of the European Court of Justice confirming the right of a member state to restrict imports based on public policy grounds. Whilst the exception will be interpreted restrictively, nevertheless member states enjoy discretion. Respect for international law is unquestionably a part of public policy in Ireland, as is the protection of our fundamental rights. Respect for fundamental rights has been endorsed by the European Court of Justice ruling that both the EU and member states are required to respect fundamental rights and that the protection of those rights is a legitimate interest which in principle justifies the restriction of the obligations imposed by European Union law such as the free movement of goods. It is in this context that the rules as interpreted by the International Court of Justice contained in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are critically important. In January 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled on the war in Gaza and ordered Israel to 'take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of article II of the Genocide Convention including in particular; to prevent deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part'. Ordering Israel to take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza. These orders were reinforced subsequently requiring Israel to 'immediately halt its military offensive and any other action in the Rafah governorate which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about his physical destruction in whole or in part'. It is settled European case law that observance of international law is not merely a rhetorical statement but has specific legal obligations. The EU is bound by customary international law and EU law must be interpreted in light of international treaties, such as the treaty on Genocide which is binding on all member states insofar as they reflect customary international law. In the circumstances it is no longer acceptable for EU member states including Ireland to merely criticise the ongoing slaughter in Gaza, but it is incumbent on them all to immediately impose sanctions – as they have done on Russia for similar fundamental breaches of international law. It is noteworthy that even Vladimir Putin has not prohibited access to international aid organisations in the areas impacted by war. Even in the war-torn zone of Sudan international aid organisations have access. Israel stands in a unique position. Time to 'review' the trade agreement has long expired. – Yours, etc, PHILIP LEE, Glenageary, Co Dublin. Sir, – As a group of medical doctors, we would like to express our deep concern with regard to the ever worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza. We are particularly concerned for our medical and healthcare colleagues working in impossible situations there. Our colleagues are struggling daily with the collapse of the healthcare system, the destruction of hospitals and the death of their fellow healthcare workers. They are working with bombed hospitals, makeshift operating theatres, absence of essential medicines and the destruction of medical equipment. They are witnessing malnutrition, near famine conditions, destruction of water and sanitation systems. They operate on children without rudimentary pain relief. Simple basic treatment of infections, that we take for granted, is difficult enough to access, but treatment for serious illnesses such as cancer barely exists. The creation of field hospitals by various international NGOs does not compensate for the extensive loss of the healthcare infrastructure. Hospitals, healthcare workers and their patients are being targeted. This is all truly reprehensible and has no place in a supposedly civilised 21st century. We do not take sides in this war and we unreservedly condemn the killing by both Hamas and the Israel Defense Forces. However, we are deeply concerned as we witness the deteriorating situation, the killing of innocent people, the lack of respect for civilian life and the escalating humanitarian disaster. The First Geneva Convention states that there should be no 'obstacle to the humanitarian activities' and that wounded and sick 'shall be respected and protected in all circumstances'. Article 18 demands that medical units, ie hospitals and mobile medical facilities, may in no circumstances be attacked. We, like many others, feel helpless but believe that this intolerable situation cannot be allowed to continue. As we hear reports of only a very limited number of trucks being allowed into Gaza in recent days, we add our voices to the call for immediate opening of the borders to allow the necessary supply of aid to get through. We call on our political leaders to do all in their power to bring this about. – Yours, etc, UNIVERSITY OF GALWAY GRADUATES 1984, including: Dr Laura Barker, Dr Ann Marie Connolly, Dr Alexandra Duncan, Dr Siobhán Graham, Dr Grace Kenny, Mr Dermot Lanigan, Dr Brian Lennon, Dr Geraldine O'Dea, Dr Christopher Rozario, Dr Brid Bourke, Dr Margaret Connolly, Dr Sean Connolly, Dr Khalid Dhafar. Sir, – Since the breakdown of the Trump-initiated ceasefire in Gaza, the Binyamin Netanyahu government's current action is beyond shocking. The shutting off of water and food supplies to the civilian population has continued for 11 weeks! The images of severely malnourished children prove that famine exists in Gaza. The tokenistic supply of aid by Netanyahu's government is an insult to the civilised world. These children need not just access to food and clean water, but to specialised teams with the expertise to renourish them through the critical refeeding phase, and to support their recovery, which will take months. They will not be helped by tokenistic numbers of lorries nor the 'private companies', which the US government claims will deliver aid at some time in the future. Unicef and other NGOs with the necessary expertise and supplies must be allowed immediate access which can only occur with an immediate ceasefire. Does Netanyahu expect any hostages still alive to survive in these circumstances? President Trump, please order a ceasefire today, and allow the UN agencies to do their job. – Yours, etc, SHEILA MACKEN, (Retired paediatrician), Clontarf, Dublin 3. Sir, – I am bound to wonder what threshold of harm must be reached before all governments withdraw all support – economic, military, diplomatic, cultural – to the state of Israel? – Yours, etc, CON LYNCH Schull, West Cork. Sir, – In the west of Ireland it is peaceful and sunny. Across the world, 14,000 babies may die of starvation in Gaza. What use are governments with power, if in times of most desperate and bleak, action is not taken? We march, protest and plead. – Yours, etc, PATRICK Ó LAOGHAIRE, Louisburgh, Co Mayo. Resetting political relationships Sir, – It is encouraging to see positive energy and goodwill finally translate into a concrete step forward in the UK-EU relationship, as reported by Mark Paul and Jack Power in ' UK declares 'new chapter' in relationship with EU '. The European Parliament has recently called for a fresh, more constructive approach to relations with the UK, following the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in March. While the UK's red lines are well known, there is clear scope to improve the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), easing friction and unlocking mutual opportunities. With a comprehensive animal and plant health (SPS) agreement, mutual recognition of professional qualifications, renewed UK association with Erasmus+, electricity market integration, progress on fisheries, and alignment on emissions trading now within reach, much is at stake. The European Parliament, as co-legislator, and the Irish Government, must now hold both the commission and the UK government to their commitments under the new 'Common Understanding'. But we must also consider the broader geopolitical context. Russia's ongoing aggression in Ukraine, Donald Trump's recent antics on tariffs, and continued instability in the Middle East highlight the urgent need for closer co-ordination between like-minded allies. This is a moment of real potential for Ireland, the UK and the EU. The challenge now is to turn shared objectives into shared progress for people and businesses alike. – Yours, etc, NINA CARBERRY, MEP European Parliament, Brussels. Eurovision sour grapes Sir, – Perhaps Sarah Glennane (Letters , May 20th) can explain further, exactly what she means and implies by calling the Eurovision Song Contest 'a sorry affair, an insult to our songwriters'. Sour grapes or what? I thought it was a magnificent production. I thoroughly enjoyed it. – Yours, etc, ENA KEYE, Rathfarnham, Dublin14. A case of breaking and entering Sir, – Áine Ryan's Irishwoman's Diary (May 20th) about her penchant for losing / mislaying things reminded me of an incident decades back in Blackrock Bowling Club. A lovely lady-bowler, Aileen, asked me to help her with the unco-operative key /door-lock on her car – she was in a hurry and didn't mind how I opened the door. Eventually I managed to force it with a screwdriver, breaking the lock. When the same key wouldn't fit properly in the ignition, we decided to call her husband at his dental practice for some help. 'There's a problem with my key – it wouldn't unlock the door and doesn't fit in the ignition,' she said to him. 'Aileen,' he asked, 'what car is it you are having a problem with?' 'My red Mini,' she replied. 'Your Mini is maroon,' he reminded her, 'and it's in for a service today. You drove my car. Is there a silver BMW anywhere near the red Mini?' There was. – Yours, etc, MICHAEL KEEGAN, Booterstown, Co Dublin. Sir, – It was concerning to read the list of early signs and symptoms of Dementia in 'Dementia is just one part of who they are. My husband's underlying personality hasn't really changed' (Health & Family, May 20th). Then three pages on, it was a tonic to read Áine Ryan's Irishwoman's Diary and to be able to reassure oneself that generally all is right with your world. God Bless Áine Ryan! – Yours, etc, MARTIN CROTTY, Blackrock, Co Louth. Shedding tiers Sir, – With reference to the excellent and timely article ' What lessons are there from over 30 years ago for today?' by Judith Harford & Brian Fleming (May 20th) they remind us that the important proposal to establish a 'middle tier' of governance to manage the education system at regional or local level was 'quietly abandoned'. This was to the disappointment of many and resulted in other consequent developments being shelved in the years since then. I cannot help wondering if this tier had then been put in place, would we still be witnessing the serious shortages in both mainstream and special needs provision that are just now placing enormous pressure on those affected? And would the system today be more responsive and nimble in identifying and meeting varying local educational needs in both sectors, as it was intended to be? – Yours, etc, DESMOND SWAN, Emeritus Professor of Education, UCD. Fox hunting Bill and politicians Sir, – On May 27th the first attempt in Ireland's history to have fox hunting banned here will be made in the Dáil. Ruth Coppinger TD will move the Animal Health and Welfare (Ban on Fox Hunting) Bill 2025, which seeks to amend existing law under which this cruel practice is permitted. How the Bill proceeds through the Oireachtas will depend on the level of support it gets from TDs and Senators. Given the current focus on the need to preserve what's left of our wildlife heritage I hope that each of them will, on this occasion, put the welfare of this beautiful wild dog before narrow political considerations. The fox has a central nervous system similar to that of any domestic canine. It feels pain in exactly the same way, so the claim by the blood sport lobby that it 'enjoys' the chase is unfounded, like the other claims it makes in defence of an activity that Oscar Wilde described as the 'unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable'. The pro-hunt case is self-contradictory. On the one hand it asserts that hunting with hounds keeps down fox numbers, while also claiming that it's humane because very few foxes are caught! Its claim to be performing pest-control is undermined by the practice of introducing cubs to areas where foxes have become scarce to ensure that the hunts have enough of them to chase. None of us would like our pet dog – or any dog – to suffer intense pain or distress. We would, if we could, intervene to help the animal or call a vet. We should also, I suggest, come to the aid of the humble fox. As with bull fighting and bear baiting, a love of tradition is cited as a reason for allowing this blot on the countryside. But nothing can justify causing an animal to suffer just for fun. Fox hunting should have no place in 2025 when nature is under siege from climate change, pollution and habitat loss, and at a time when the majority of people no longer equate organised animal cruelty with 'sport'. – Yours, etc, JOHN FITZGERALD, Callan, Co Kilkenny.
Telegraph
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
We have just surrendered to the EU
Who would have guessed. Keir Starmer, the man who campaigned to overturn the democratic vote of 17.4 million people, has just signed what is little more than a surrender agreement with the European Union. Be in no doubt, this document pushes us back into the orbit of Brussels, giving away vast amounts of our sovereignty for very little in return. This is nothing more than the start of a slippery slope to rejoining the EU – an outcome I have little doubt the Prime Minister and his cabinet would welcome with open arms. One of the key benefits of Brexit was that we would finally have a competitive edge over Europe. The SPS provisions agreed as part of this deal means that we will continue to be prisoner to EU goods regulations by forcing us to dynamically align with EU rules. More concerning is that the UK will be forced to accept the role of the European Court of Justice as the ultimate authority on any disputes in this area, meaning we will be subject to a foreign court once again. Starmer's total inability to grasp what people voted for in 2016 now means that one of the core pillars of the Brexit campaign – that laws made by UK courts should be judged on and interpreted in the UK – has been totally betrayed. To make things worse, Keir Starmer has even offered to fork out for the pleasure of losing this core Brexit benefit, agreeing to 'support the relevant costs associated with the European Union's work in this policy area'. On fishing, this agreement has essentially set out the government's roadmap to kill off the British fishing industry once and for all. It is a complete betrayal of a sector that could have flourished after we left the EU, but was instead sold down the river by successive Conservative and Labour administrations. This further betrayal of a once great industry will be the final nail in its coffin. Granting European fishermen access to British waters for 12 years is enough to practically give European boats permanent access to our waters. As older British fishermen leave the industry, and with no opportunity or incentive for younger people to join or for investment in new boats, this will be the end of the fishing industry in Britain. This also puts us in the ludicrous situation where European super-trawlers catch fish in British waters just to sell them back to us, devastating our fishing communities in the process. This is extremely on brand for the same Prime Minister who targeted family farms with inheritance tax. Now he's set his sights on our fishing sector. This Labour government is wreaking havoc on our ability to produce our own food. What do we have to show for this sell out? Surely, having given so much away, the Prime Minister has secured some serious concessions from Ursula von der Leyen? Unfortunately not. The main benefit being flaunted by Keir Starmer is that Brits travelling to Europe will now be able to use e-Gates at airports. But even this seeming benefit is completely misleading. Let's be clear: the text of this deal does not automatically mean Brits can use EU queue lines and e-Gates. There is nothing here that mandates EU Member States to allow Brits to use this queue, despite the fact we already afford them this courtesy. So, for a betrayal of 17.4 million people, making the UK subject to a foreign court once more, and the overt assassination of our fishing industry, the Prime Minister has managed to get the EU to commit almost nothing in return. This will go down as one of the worst deals in British history. During the General Election, the Prime Minister pledged that he would not betray Brexit. He claimed he did not want to reopen the wounds. What we have seen here is a naked, unashamed U-turn on that promise.
Telegraph
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Keir Starmer's EU ‘reset' is shaping up to be a capitulation
SIR – You urge Sir Keir Starmer not to 'surrender to Brussels' in his European Union 'reset' (Leading Article, May 17). You also observe that Britain's negotiating position at the Lancaster House talks is stronger than the Prime Minister appears to appreciate. You are right: our favourable geographic location – remote from Russia – and possession of Europe's best armed forces suggest that the EU needs us more than we need it. Predictably, the EU has been trying at the last minute to demand unreasonable concessions before agreeing a defence and trade reset that will benefit all parties. EU demands for long-term access to British fishing waters and jurisdiction in Britain of the European Court of Justice are precisely the sort of affronts to our sovereignty that must be rejected. Sir Keir should – but probably will not – respect Brexit's four clear red lines: no customs union membership, no single market membership, no freedom of movement and no new power for the ECJ. British companies must not become EU rule-takers. In addition, we should demand a reset of Irish trade arrangements. The EU has ignored multiple experts who made clear that digital border controls obviate any need for a hard Irish border, whether on land or at sea, where one now exists. This otiose border was created as a Brexit punishment on the basis of confected EU concerns about effective trade controls. Gregory Shenkman London SW7 SIR – As Eurovision demonstrated on Saturday, not even our musical taste is compatible with the EU. Sir Keir Starmer should bear this incompatibility in mind during his efforts to cosy up to the bloc. He should also be wary of the ramifications of surreptitiously reversing the Brexit referendum result. There is absolutely no mandate for this, especially given the relatively low vote share that his party received in the general election last year. John Kellie Pyrford, Surrey SIR – Has it occurred to Sir Keir Starmer that his attempt to reset Britain's relationship with the EU might prompt Donald Trump to reset America's relationship with Britain, thus jeopardising all the good, hard-won things that have been achieved recently? Simon McIlroy Croydon, Surrey SIR – Camilla Tominey writes that 'Starmer is not to be trusted with Brexit' (Comment, May 17). I would like to know what benefits have lit up our lives over the past nine years as a result of that paper-thin-majority vote to leave the European Union. John Tavner Dedham, Essex
Telegraph
18-05-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
An unnecessary and costly EU ‘reset'
On the eve of the 'reset' summit with Brussels, Nick Thomas-Symonds has let the cat out of the bag. In a BBC interview, the Europe minister admitted that the Government is about to accede to one of the EU's cardinal principles: 'dynamic alignment'. This sinister doctrine implies that Britain will once again be obliged to accept 'common standards' on food and be subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. It is hard to exaggerate the significance of this concession. At a stroke, Labour will have sacrificed one of the biggest benefits of Brexit: taking back control of our own rules. Once national sovereignty is given away on food standards, we will find ourselves on a slippery slope. Over time, other areas of the economy will inexorably be drawn back into the EU's orbit. This is the true meaning of 'dynamic alignment': a one-way ticket to Brussels. So what will we get in return for selling our birthright for a mess of EU pottage? Mr Thomas-Symonds claims that cross-Channel trade will become 'far easier'. Yet the promised reductions in red tape are specious. Not only will they be conditional on the UK renouncing regulatory independence, but they will put at risk deals already negotiated with other trading partners – including, crucially, the United States. We risk becoming a mere EU satellite. Indeed, the so-called reset appears to be almost entirely one-sided. We must accept EU food standards and ECJ jurisdiction; join a defence pact on the EU's terms; grant free movement for young EU citizens, many of whom we will subsidise at our universities; and let the EU fish in our waters. If all this seems too much of a giveaway in exchange for shorter passport queues, that's because it is. This EU deal looks less like a reset than a capitulation. Over the coming days, ministers will doubtless try to reassure the British public that none of their concessions amounts to abandoning Brexit. But beware of doublespeak. When Mr Thomas-Symonds tells us that the Government's perspective is not 'ideological' but 'practical', he means that we will be giving away fundamental freedoms, such as the right to make and apply our own laws, in return for technicalities, such as the right to use e-gates at passport control. Labour's slow-motion unravelling of Brexit is quite unnecessary. By the time the party is punished at the ballot box, however, it may already be too late.
