Air Passenger Rights Case Law Developments From 16 June to 09 December 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 16 June to 9 December 2024, there have been limited case developments concerning air passenger rights. The first part of this article highlights recent decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that have shed light on the interpretation of EU Regulation No 261/2004 and Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012. The second part presents a non-exhaustive overview of selected significant rulings from non- EU countries. In the case joined Case E EAD v. DW (C-650/23) and Flightright GmbH v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH, the Court clarified that passengers can rely on the rights provided under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004, even when their flights are part of package tours. In JX v. FTI Touristik GmbH, the Court determined that Article 18 of (B) Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 not only governs international jurisdiction but also specifies territorial jurisdiction, allowing the consumer to sue in the court of their domicile. In the case International Air Transport Association v. Canada (Transportation Agency), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Canadian Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) do not violate the Montreal Convention’s exclusivity principle. In the case Lipton and another v. BA Cityflyer Ltd, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the cancellation of a flight, does not qualify as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ under EU Regulation 261and that causes of action arising before Brexit should be governed by the EU law in force immediately before the UK’s exit, as retained EU law. div/div
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".