Headnotes:
If the general court considers that the only key and credible evidence for proving the length of the flight delay is the flight record drawn up by the operating air carrier that is free to dispose of the data recorded in such a record in accordance with its own interests, such a procedure is contrary to the meaning and purpose of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, which consists in protecting passengers as the weaker party to the contract. By so doing, the general court infringes the right to judicial protection under Article 36(1) of the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Summary:
I. In the judgment under appeal, the District Court dismissed the action by which the applicant sought payment of the sum of EUR 400, together with default interest, for the delay of more than three hours in the flight, from the defendant Smartwings, a.s.. In his constitutional complaint, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the District Court did not conduct the evidence in the present case impartially but in favour of the defendant. Although the complainant submitted several documentary evidence to the District Court in order to prove the length of the flight delay, which exceeded the threshold of a significant flight delay within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 and the relevant case-law of the CJEU, the District Court based its assessment of the length of the flight delay solely on the evidence submitted by the defendant company.
II. The Constitutional Court, in accordance with its jurisprudence (in particular the ruling in judgment of 7 February 2022, file No. II. ÚS 2226/21), agreed with the complainant that if the only key and credible basis for proving the length of the flight delay at the final destination was to be considered, in the case under examination, to be only the flight record prepared by the operating air carrier, that is free to dispose of the data recorded in such a record in accordance with its own interests, such a procedure is contrary to the meaning and purpose of the Regulation, which is to protect passengers as the weaker party to the contract. In such a case, the passengers would have virtually no possibility of proving the length of the flight delay in a dispute with the operating air carrier. That is because even if they were to prove their allegations concerning the length of the flight delay by any other means of evidence, for example, flight statements from various sources, information from airports or air traffic control, witness statements, etc, only the information contained in the flight record of the operating air carrier, irrespective of its accuracy, would be decisive for establishing the length of the delay at the destination. The complainant submitted as evidence two flight information extracts from specialised portals. However, the District Court did not deal with that evidence or explain why it did not take it into account, thereby failing to comply with the requirements of a properly reasoned decision.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the District Court violated the complainant's right to judicial protection under Article 36(1) of the Czech Charter and the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the Convention.
III. The Justice Rapporteur in the case was Pavel Šámal. None of the Justices dissented.