Full reference: CJEU, 1st chamber, 18th of November 2020, decision C‑519/19, Ryanair DAC vs DelayFix

Read the decision

Summary of the decision

This decision of the CJEU of 18th of November 2020 is about the jurisdiction clause for any dispute in air transport contracts, here those of Ryanair. This decision is especially interesting about the question to know whether the professional assignee (collection company) of a debt whose holder was a consumer may or may not avail itself of the consumer protection provisions, canceling the scope of this type of clause. 

The Court takes back the criteria and the solution already used in 2019 about a credit contract: the protection applies by the criterion of the parties to the contract and not of the parties to the disputes. Such a clause is effective only if the integrality of the contract is transferred to the professional, and not only some of the stipulations.

This Regulatory decision, through "private enforcement", incentivizes consumers to transfer their compensation claim (around 250 euros) to collection companies which, in turn, discipline airlines to stay on schedule.

Full reference: Frison-Roche, M.-A., Judge between Platform and Regulator: current example of Uber case in U.K., Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation, 29th of September 2020

Read by freely subscribing the other news of the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Compliance, Regulation

Summary of the news:

On 22nd of September 2017, Transport of London (TFL), London Transport Regulator, refused to renew the licence, granted on 31st of May 2012 for 5 years, authorizing Uber to transport people because of criminal offenses committed by Uber's drivers. On 26th of June 2018, The Westminster Court prolonged Uber's licence for 15 months under the condition that the platform prevent the reproachable behaviors of its drivers. After these 15 months, the TFL refused once again to prolonge Uber's licence because of the persistence of aggressions against passengers. Uber, once again, contest this decision before the Westminster Court. 

In a decision of 28th of September 2020, the Court observes that during the 15 months, the platform implemented many measures to prevent aggressions, that the level of maturity of these measures has improved over time and that the number of offenses was reduced over the period (passing from 55 in 2018 to 4 in 2020). The Court estimated the the implementation of this actions is sufficient to grant a new licence to Uber. 

We can learn three lessons from this decision: 

1. The Compliance obligation is not a result obligation but a mean obligation, which means that it is not reasonable to expect from a crucial operator (Uber, for instance) that it prevent every cases of agression but that it is salient to judge it on the effort it deploys to try to be closer to this ideal situation. Moreover, the crucial operator must be proactive, that is going away from the figure of passive subject of Law who apply measures enacted by the regulator in terms of fighting against aggressions to be an actor of the research of the best way to fight abusive behaviors, internalizing this "monumental goal. 
2. The judge appreciates the violation committed by those whose the firm is responsible "in context", that is evaluates the concrete situation in a reasonable way. 
3. It is the judge who decides in last resort and like the crucial operator, it must be reasonable. 

Read to go further:

• Frison-Roche, M.-A., Firm, Regulator and Judge: thinking Compliance through these three characters, 2018
• The report of the Assemblée nationale (French Parliament chamber) on the question 

Full reference: Westminster Magistrates' Court, 28th of September 2020, Uber London Limited v. Transport for London 

Read the decision

Read Marie-Anne Frison-Roche's commentary in the Newsletter MAFR - Law, Regulation & Compliance 

Full reference: ARAFER, Opinion n°2019-083 relatif aux projets de décrets approuvant les statuts de la société nationale SNCF, de la société SNCF Réseau, de la filiale mentionnée au 5° de l’article L. 2111-9 du code des transports et de la société SNCF Voyageurs, et portant diverses dispositions relatives à ces mêmes entités (related to the project of decrees approving the status of the national societies SNCF, SNCF réseau, of the subsidy mentionnes at the 5° of the article L. 2111-9 du code des transports and of SNCF Voyageurs, and carrying some dispositions related to this bodies), 9th of December 2019

Read the opinion (in French)

Read the décret approuvant les status de la société nationale SNCF (in French)

Read the opinion of 9th of May 2019 having preceded the one of 9th of December 2019

Full reference : ARAFER, Opinion n°2019-028 relatif au projet d'ordonnance portant diverses dispositions relatives à la nouvelle SNCF (related to the project of ordinance carrying some dispositions related to the new SNCF), 9th of May 2019

Read the opinion (in French)

Read the ordonnance portant diverses dispositions relatives à la nouvelle SNCF (in French)

Read the opinion of 9th of December 2019 following the one of 9th of May 2019