Judgment II. ÚS 2226/21

The second panel of the Constitutional Court (with David Uhlíř as Justice-Rapporteur) granted the constitutional complaint and annulled the judgment of the District Court for Prague 6, as it violated the complainant’s right to judicial protection and to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 36(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In October 2019, in proceedings before the District Court for Prague 6, the complainant unsuccessfully sought compensation for other than proprietary harm in the amount of EUR 250, including accessories, from the defendant Smartwings, a.s. (interested party – intervener in these proceedings). According to the complainant, the requested amount represents compensation for other than proprietary harm in the form of flat-rate financial compensation for delay of a flight from Prague to London on 21 March 2019, in accordance with 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, in conjunction with the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases of Christopher Sturgeon and Other v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (C-402/07) and Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA (C-432/07). In accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of the Regulation, in conjunction with the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, passengers whose flight of less than 1 500 kilometres was delayed by more than 3 hours on arrival at its final destination are entitled to flat-rate compensation of EUR 250 for other than proprietary harm caused by a significant delay.

According to the complainant, the flight was scheduled to depart at 12:30 local time and arrive at its destination at 13:35 local time. However, it was significantly delayed on its arrival, having actually departed from the airport at the point of departure at 16:11 local time and reaching its destination at 16:48 local time, i.e. 3 hours and 13 minutes late, at which point the aircraft of the relevant flight arrived at the gate. In its statement of defence, the intervener argued that the flight delay did not exceed 3 hours, which would entitle passengers to financial compensation for the harm suffered, since the journey log produced by the intervener shows that the flight reached its destination not at the time claimed by the complainant but at 16:30 local time. Therefore, according to the intervener, the flight delay at the final destination totalled 2 hours and 55 minutes. The judgment of the District Court challenged by the constitutional complaint dismissed the complainant’s action in its entirety and ordered the complainant to pay the intervener CZK 1 200 in costs of the proceedings.

The complainant then turned to the Constitutional Court. He saw a fundamental interference with his constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial in that the court assessed the evidence in a biased manner in favour of the intervener. In particular, the complainant argued that, although he had submitted to the court several pieces of documentary evidence from different sources to prove the length of the flight delay, which independently confirmed his allegations in a completely consistent manner, the court had nevertheless relied solely on the evidence submitted by the intervener, which was, moreover, directly created by the intervener.

The Constitutional Court concluded that the constitutional complaint was justified. It is possible to agree with the complainant’s view 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 at hand, only the journey log created by the operating air carrier, which is free to handle 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, passengers would have virtually no opportunity to prove the length of the flight delay in a dispute with the operating air carrier, because even if they were to substantiate their claims regarding the length of the flight delay by any other means of evidence, for example, flight records from various sources, information from airports or air traffic control, witness statements, etc, only the information contained in the journey log of the operating air carrier, irrespective of its accuracy, would be decisive for establishing the length of the delay at the destination.

In further proceedings, the court shall take into account and properly evaluate all the evidence submitted by the complainant, if need hear any witnesses proposed by the complainant, and reconsider the credibility of the document submitted by the intervener.