Call Us +39 011 55.84.111

Maurizio Corain

Maurizio Corain

Si occupa in modo particolare di diritto della navigazione e dei trasporti e ha maturato una consolidata esperienza in tale ambito, offrendo consulenza nella redazione di contratti e nell’assistenza in controversie nei settori aereo, marittimo e terrestre.


European Court of Justice, flightright vs Iberia case

The judgement concerns the interpretation of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

Section 2 of Chapter II of Regulation No 1215/2012, entitled “Special jurisdiction”, contains Article 7(1) thereof, which provides:

A person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State:

  1. in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question;
  2. for the purpose of this provision and unless otherwise agreed, the place of performance of the obligation in question shall be:

    — in the case of the sale of goods, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered,

    — in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided;

  3. if point (b) does not apply then point (a) applies.”

The disputes filed by flightright GmbH vs Iberia LAE SA Operadora Unipersonal concern a journey with three connecting flights under a confirmed single booking for two passengers: the first leg (from Hamburg to London) operated by British Airways, the subsequent two legs (from London to Madrid and from Madrid to San Sebastián) operated by Iberia.

ECTAA files antitrust complaint against IATA

ECTAA - European Travel Agents’ and Tour Operators’ Association recently filed a complaint against the IATA before the European Commission.

 Such complaint is based on the breach of Articles 101 and 102 of the EU Treaty, ECTAA alleged.

 “Airlines have entered into direct competition with travel agents on the distribution of air tickets while the classical commission-based remuneration schemes have been abandoned”, ECTAA said.

 The IATA PAP - Passenger Agency Programme is still entirely construed around a traditional “mandate scheme” (the so called “IATA PSAA – Passenger Sales Agency Agreement”), under which the remuneration of the travel agent is calculated on the ticket selling volume, where the percentage of such calculation is often close to the “zero percentage philosophy”: this is the negative sense of such programme and its assumed current inadequacy, ECTAA argued.

 On the basis of the above said, ECTAA denounced the current policy applicable to air ticket distribution, which rules are unilaterally decided, “as a dominant system that restricts competition… (due to the) abuse of IATA’s dominant position” in such sector.


Rinuncia all’azione e poteri del difensore, conferma dell’orientamento dei giudici della legittimità

La rinuncia all'azione, ovvero all'intera pretesa azionata dall'attore nei confronti del convenuto, costituisce un atto di disposizione del diritto in contesa e richiede, in capo al difensore, un mandato "ad hoc", senza che sia a tal fine sufficiente quello "ad litem", in ciò differenziandosi dalla rinuncia ad una parte dell'originaria domanda, che rientra fra i poteri del difensore quale espressione della facoltà di modificare le domande e le conclusioni precedentemente formulate.

The 22nd ratification, recently filed by Turkey, will make the Beijing Convention 2010 on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation into force on 1 July 2018

Pursuant to its recent ratification by the Government of Turkey, ICAO has announced that the Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation, done in Beijing on 10 September 2010, will enter into force on 1 July.

Art. 7ter DLgs 286/2005 – una decisione mancata

Con l’ordinanza n. 37 del 2018, la Corte ha dichiarato l’inammissibilità della questione di legittimità costituzionale dell’art. 1-bis, comma 2, lettera e), del decreto-legge 6 luglio 2010, n. 103 (Disposizioni urgenti per assicurare la regolarità del servizio pubblico di trasporto marittimo ed il sostegno della produttività nel settore dei trasporti), convertito in legge 4 agosto 2010, n. 127, nella parte in cui inserisce l’art. 7ter nel DLgs 21 novembre 2005, n. 286 (Disposizioni per il riassetto normativo in materia di liberalizzazione regolata dell’esercizio dell’attività di autotrasportatore), sollevata dal Tribunale ordinario di Grosseto.

Aircraft Noise Emission Tax: Piemonte Region Decision

On January 1st 2018, it will entered into force the aircraft noise emission tax (IRESA) as provided for by Article 10 of Regional Law 14 April 2017, n. 6 approved by Piemonte Regional Council.  Caselle Airport does not agree and it retorts affirming that, in this way, Turin airport becomes less competitive than neighboring airports such as Milano Malpensa.  Actually, the above is not a peculiarity of Piemonte Region: the law should be enforce nationwide, but the competence is in charge of the single Region on the basis of a template. The fact is that mainly this law is not applied: the solely Region that provides for by such tax are Lazio, Campania, Emilia Romagna, Calabria and Marche, and, now, Piemonte. According to the calculations, the enforcement of the IRESA will increase the airport cost in Piemonte Region about 24% for every take-off and landing (Paragraph 5 of the above said Article 10 Regional Law 6/2017).

Link alla fonte  

Italian Antitrust Authority, Ryanair case:

Flight cancellations, Italian Antitrust Authority opens an investigation on Ryanair for alleged unfair commercial practices.

Italian Antitrust Authority has opened an investigation on Ryanair for alleged unfair commercial practices violating the Consumer Code. According to the Authority, the numerous flight cancellations that have already occurred or that will take place in the coming weeks, as reported in the press, could constitute a breach of the duty of diligence set out in art. 20 of the Consumer Code, to the extent that they have been caused by foreseeable organizational and management problems, and not by random and exogenous circumstances outside of Ryanair’s control, ultimately leading to substantial inconvenience to consumers who had long planned their traveling schedules and thus booked and paid for their plane tickets.

In addition, the Antitrust Authority will also investigate the way in which Ryanair has informed passengers of the cancellation of their flight and suggested them the alternative solutions (reimbursement or change of the ticket), since consumers might have been misled about the existence, and therefore the exercise, of their right to financial compensation granted by Regulation EC 261/04 precisely in the event of flight cancellations.

The procedure opened by the Authority has the number PS10972.

Link alla fonte

European Court of Justice, Ryanair case: the revenge of fair competition?

Ryanair employment contracts examined by the Court are drafted in English, subject to Irish law, with a jurisdiction clause providing that the Irish courts have jurisdiction. In those contracts, it was stipulated that the work of the employees concerned, as cabin crew, was regarded as being carried out in Ireland given that their duties are performed on board aircraft registered in that Member State. Those contracts nevertheless designate the Belgian Charleroi airport as the employees’ ‘home base’. Those employees start and end their working day at that airport, and they are contractually obliged to reside within an hour of their ‘home base’.

In that context, ECJ considers that, in disputes relating to their employment contracts, air crew members have the option of bringing proceedings before the courts of the place where they perform the essential part of their duties vis-à-vis their employer. Consequently, the national courts must determine that place in the light of all the relevant circumstances, an employee’s ‘home base’ being a significant indicator to that effect.

The Court states that a jurisdiction clause, concluded before the disputes arose, and seeking to prevent employees from bringing proceedings before courts which do however have jurisdiction under EU legislation in this field, is not enforceable against those employees.

The above said has been decided in joined Cases C-168/16 and C-169/16 on 14 September 2017.

Link alla fonte

European Court of Justice, Bossen case: The fact that the distance covered by a connecting flight is, as a result of the connection, greater than the distance between the departure and arrival airports has no impact on the calculation of compensation

Birgit Bossen and other passengers travelled from Rome to Hamburg via Brussels on a flight operated by Brussels Airlines. As their flight arrived in Hamburg with a delay of 3 hours and 50 minutes, they brought an action against Brussels Airlines, claiming compensation on the basis of the EU regulation on compensation for airline passengers.

ECJ notes, first, that with regard to the right to compensation, the regulation makes no distinction as to whether the passengers concerned reach their final destination by means of a direct flight or an air journey with connecting flights. In that context, the Court considers that the nature of the flight (direct flight or connecting flight) has no impact on the extent of the inconvenience suffered by the passengers for a cancellation or long delay. Consequently, when determining the amount of compensation in the case of a connecting flight, only the radial distance (calculated on the basis of great circle route method) that a direct flight would cover between the departure airport and the arrival airport should be taken into consideration.

The above said has been decided in Case C-559/16 on 7 September 2017.


European Court of Justice opinion, the envisage PNR agreement between EU and Canada may not be concluded in its current form because several of its provisions are incompatible with the fundamental rights recognised by the EU

The EU and Canada negotiated an agreement on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data (PNR agreement) which was signed in 2014. The envisaged agreement permits the systematic and continuous transfer of PNR data of all air passengers to a Canadian authority with a view to that data being used and retained, and possibly transferred subsequently to other authorities and to other non-member countries, for the purpose of combating terrorism and forms of serious transnational crime. To that end, the envisaged agreement, amongst other things, provides for a data storage period of five years and lays down requirements in relation to PNR data security and integrity, immediate masking of sensitive data, rights of access to and correction and erasure of data, and for the possibility of administrative and judicial redress. The Court observes, therefore, that although the systematic transfer, retention and use of all passenger data are, in essence, permissible, several provisions of the draft agreement do not meet requirements stemming from the fundamental rights of the European Union. Consequently, the Court concludes that the envisaged agreement may not be concluded in its current form.


R&P Legal
Via Amedeo Avogadro, 26
10121, Torino - Italy
R&P Legal
Piazzale Luigi Cadorna, 4
20123, Milano - Italy
R&P Legal
Via Emilia, 86/90
00187, Roma - Italy
Busto Arsizio
R&P Legal
Via Goito, 14
21052, Busto Arsizio (VA) - Italy

R&P Legal
Via Croce di Città, 44
11100, Aosta - Italy
R&P Legal
Via D’Azeglio, 19
40123, Bologna - Italy
R&P Legal
Viale Vittorio Emanuele II, 12
24121, Bergamo - Italy