Has anyone heard of "Case C-315/15 - Pešková and Peška, whereby in the event of a delay equal to or in excess of 3 hours on arrival, caused by
both extraordinary and non-extraordinary circumstances, the delay caused
by the first event (extraordinary circumstances) must be deducted from
the total length of the delay in the arrival."
This was just quoted as rationale for refusing my ongoing Easyjet claim,
but I am astonished that nobody has mentioned it before, neither Easyjet
in any of our many exchanges including an LBA and my claim at Aviation
ADR plus a review and a further review following the new evidence where
this was first mentioned.
It's such a slam-dunk that I can only assume there are some further
cases that found against it - is anyone aware of them please ?
TIA as usual.
On 06/04/2025 08:28, BrritSki wrote:
Has anyone heard of "Case C-315/15 - Pešková and Peška, whereby in the event of a delay equal to or in excess of 3 hours on arrival, caused by both extraordinary and non-extraordinary circumstances, the delay caused
by the first event (extraordinary circumstances) must be deducted from
the total length of the delay in the arrival."
This was just quoted as rationale for refusing my ongoing Easyjet claim, but I am astonished that nobody has mentioned it before, neither Easyjet
in any of our many exchanges including an LBA and my claim at Aviation
ADR plus a review and a further review following the new evidence where this was first mentioned.
It's such a slam-dunk that I can only assume there are some further
cases that found against it - is anyone aware of them please ?
TIA as usual.
Some comments on it e.g. <https://whitestonechambers.com/articles/the-cjeus-striking-decision-peskova-examined-2/>
Since the event happened in August 2013, and judgement was handed down
in May 2017, I would think there has been enough time for it to have
been widely known.
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 19:33:17 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote...What an awful, unreadable website design. Or is that just the way that
On 06/04/2025 08:28, BrritSki wrote:
Has anyone heard of "Case C-315/15 - Pešková and Peška, whereby in the
event of a delay equal to or in excess of 3 hours on arrival, caused by
both extraordinary and non-extraordinary circumstances, the delay caused >> > by the first event (extraordinary circumstances) must be deducted from
the total length of the delay in the arrival."
This was just quoted as rationale for refusing my ongoing Easyjet claim, >> > but I am astonished that nobody has mentioned it before, neither Easyjet >> > in any of our many exchanges including an LBA and my claim at Aviation
ADR plus a review and a further review following the new evidence where
this was first mentioned.
It's such a slam-dunk that I can only assume there are some further
cases that found against it - is anyone aware of them please ?
TIA as usual.
Some comments on it e.g.
<https://whitestonechambers.com/articles/the-cjeus-striking-decision-peskova-examined-2/>
Since the event happened in August 2013, and judgement was handed down
in May 2017, I would think there has been enough time for it to have
been widely known.
See also >https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/d2e03946
The interesting factor is that the airline still lost that case. There
was an extraordinary delay because mandatory checks were necessary after
a bird strike. A local technician carried out the checks and the
aircraft was good to go. But the airline wanted confirmation and flew
out its own technican to re-inspect it.
The further delay caused by the re-inspection was held not to be >extraordinary. And it exceeded the three-hour limit set in previous
case law.
Is that slam-dunk in your case? I think you need further information
from Easyjet. What caused the delay? Which parts of it do they contend
was essential and which non-essential? And why?
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 20:58:37 +0100, Tim Jackson
<news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 19:33:17 +0100, Sam Plusnet wrote...What an awful, unreadable website design. Or is that just the way that Firefox is rendering it for me?
On 06/04/2025 08:28, BrritSki wrote:
Has anyone heard of "Case C-315/15 - Pešková and Peška, whereby in the >>>> event of a delay equal to or in excess of 3 hours on arrival, caused by >>>> both extraordinary and non-extraordinary circumstances, the delay caused >>>> by the first event (extraordinary circumstances) must be deducted from >>>> the total length of the delay in the arrival."
This was just quoted as rationale for refusing my ongoing Easyjet claim, >>>> but I am astonished that nobody has mentioned it before, neither Easyjet >>>> in any of our many exchanges including an LBA and my claim at Aviation >>>> ADR plus a review and a further review following the new evidence where >>>> this was first mentioned.
It's such a slam-dunk that I can only assume there are some further
cases that found against it - is anyone aware of them please ?
TIA as usual.
Some comments on it e.g.
<https://whitestonechambers.com/articles/the-cjeus-striking-decision-peskova-examined-2/>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:02:45 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,205 |