Link https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-06/cp200068en.pdf

Languages bg es cs da de et el en fr hr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

Court of Justice of the European Union 

PRESS RELEASE No 68/20

Luxembourg, 11 June 2020
Judgment in Case C-74/19  Transportes Aéreos Portugueses 
 
The unruly behaviour of an air passenger may constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ capable of exempting the carrier from its obligation to pay compensation for the cancellation or long delay of the flight concerned or of a subsequent flight operated by that carrier using the same aircraft
Nevertheless, the air carrier must, in respect of the reasonable measures that it must adopt in order to release itself from its obligation to pay compensation, ensure the re-routing of passengers as soon as possible, by means of other direct or indirect flights which may be operated by other air carriers
In the judgment in Transportes Aéreos Portugueses (C-74/19), delivered on 11 June 2020, the Court defined the concepts of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ and ‘reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 (‘the regulation on the rights of air passengers’).1 Accordingly, it held that, under certain conditions, the unruly behaviour of a passenger which led to the re-routing of the aircraft, which caused the delay to the flight, constitutes an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, and that an operating air carrier may rely on that ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which affected not the cancelled or delayed flight but an earlier flight operated by that air carrier using the same aircraft. The Court also held that the re-routing of a passenger by the air carrier by means of the next flight operated by that air carrier and leading that passenger to arrive the day after the day initially envisaged constitutes a ‘reasonable measure’ releasing that carrier from its obligation to pay compensation only if certain conditions are met.
The dispute in the main proceedings is between a passenger

Link https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-06/cp200069en.pdf

Languages bg es cs da de et el en fr hr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 69/20 Luxembourg,11 June 2020 
Judgment in Case C-581/18 RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH and Allianz IARD SA
 
The general prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality cannot be the basis for challenging a clause, contained in a contract concluded between a manufacturer of medical devices and an insurance company, that places a territorial limit on civil liability insurance coverage
 
In the judgment TÜV Rheinland LGA Products and Allianz IARD (C-581/18), delivered on 11 June 2020, the Grand Chamber of the Court held that the general prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality1 is not applicable to a clause, stipulated in a contract between an insurance company and a manufacturer of medical devices, limiting the geographical extent of the insurance coverage against civil liability arising from those devices to harm that has occurred in the territory of a single Member State, since such a situation does not fall, as EU law currently stands, within the scope of application of EU law.
In 2006 a German citizen had inserted in Germany, where she is resident, breast implants manufactured by Poly Implant Prothèses SA (‘PIP’), a company established in France. Since 1997 PIP had commissioned TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH (‘TÜV Rheinland’), in accordance with Directive 93/42 concerning medical devices2 to undertake an assessment of the quality system put in place for the design, manufacture and final inspection of the breast implants that PIP was producing. Following a number of inspections at the premises of PIP, TÜV Rheinland had approved the quality system and renewed the CE examination certification guaranteeing the conformity of those implants with the requirements of that directive.
 

Your Excellency,

I would like to offer you my most sincere congratulations upon assumption of your new responsabilites as President of the European Court of Human Rights.

...

Die rheinland-pfälzische Beauftragte für die Landespolizei, Barbara Schleicher-Rothmund stellt angesichts der aktuellen Diskussion fest, dass im Berichtszeitraum ihres Tätigkeitsberichts (30.06.2018-01.07.2019) lediglich in einem Fall von behaupteter „Polizeigewalt“ auch der Vorwurf des „Rassismus“ gegen Polizeibeamte erhoben wurde, welcher sich im Nachhinein nicht bestätigte.

In dem vorgenannten Berichtszeitraum wurden insgesamt 160 Anliegen an die Beauftragte für die Landespolizei herangetragen. Dabei handelte es sich um 81 Beschwerden von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, 27 Eingaben von Polizeibeamtinnen und –beamten, 38 Petitionen, 3 Auskunftsersuchen, sowie 11 unzulässige Eingaben.

Beschwerden über „Racial Profiling“ wurden an die Polizeibeauftragte nicht herangetragen.

Ein strukturelles Rassismus Problem ist für Schleicher-Rothmund in der rheinland-pfälzischen Polizei nicht erkennbar.

Die Beauftragte für die Landespolizei unterstützt und sensibilisiert die künftigen Polizistinnen und Polizisten an der Hochschule der Polizei Rheinland-Pfalz bezüglich der auch im Curriculum enthaltenen Themen wie Diversität, Grundrechte, Antidiskriminierung und Bürgerfreundlichkeit.

„In meinen Gesprächen habe ich auch festgestellt, dass sich die Studierenden intensiv mit ihrer Rolle in der Gesellschaft auseinandersetzen und sich dessen bewusst sind.“

Due to stigma surrounding their health condition, HIV positive patients are exposed to prejudice which can lead to discrimination and violation of their rights. Complaints we received confirm this – they have been denied health services, have had difficulties in being admitted into a health institution and their right to privacy has been breached. This practice impacts the right to a continuous and high-quality health care, appropriate for such condition and in the patient’s best interest, guaranteed by the Act on the Protection of Patients’ Rights. Given how in these cases it was precisely the HIV status that caused unequal treatment, we warned the responsible institutions that this constitutes discrimination on the ground of health status and recommended additional education for the employees on HIV prevention measures, as well as on the definition, forms and consequences of discrimination. This could prevent similar situations in the future, and consequently judicial procedures, including damages claims.

Further steps need to be taken by the Ministry of Health in order to ensure that HIV positive patients have the same level of health protection as other patients and right to privacy, which is one of the recommendations in the Annual Report of the Ombudswoman for 2019.

The Anti-discrimination Act, in force since 2009, prohibits unequal treatment and mandates Ombudsman as an equality body. Anyone who believes they were discriminated due to their health status, age, nationality, socio-economic status or other grounds listed in the Act, and in the area of health care, labour, employment, education or other area, can file a complaint to us by using one of our contacts.