Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1532462
6 OPINION LAW 9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 16 FEBRUARY 2025 Law Report EU legislation allows compensation in cases when people are unjustifiably denied boarding. This was held in a judgment de- livered by the adjudicator Dr Ilona Schem- bri presiding over the European Small Claims Procedure on 11 February 2025 in the case Aurelian Alin Marocio vs Wizz Air Malta Limited. This procedure was estab- lished by Regulation (EC) 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The claim dealt with the fact that the Claimant's son was not allowed to board to a flight to Istanbul, Turkey, because the passport had expired. He claimed damages of €1,800. The Defendant company did not reply to the claim. The Adjudicator first dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. The Claimant and his son are domiciled in Romania, while the De- fendant company is registered in Malta. The relationship between the Parties is one of consumer-trader relationship, but this is not governed by the Consumer Rights Directive, since it excludes the denial of boarding: "Transport services cover passenger transport and transport of goods. Passen- ger transport should be excluded from the scope of this Directive as it is already subject to other Union legislation or, in the case of public transport and taxis, to regulation at national level. However, the provisions of this Directive protecting con- sumers against excessive fees for the use of means of payment or against hidden costs should apply also to passenger transport contracts. In relation to transport of goods and car rental which are services, consum- ers should benefit from the protection af- forded by this Directive, with the exception of the right of withdrawal." The Adjudicator applied Brussels I regu- lation. This was explained in the law book entitled Air Passenger Rights, European Case Law: "For flights from one Member State to another Member State, carried out on the basis of a contract with a single operating air carrier, a claim for compensation un- der the Regulation can be brought, at the applicant's choice, to the national court which has territorial jurisdiction either over the place of departure or place of ar- rival, as stated in the contract of carriage (in application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 ('Brussels I'), now recast under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 ('Brussels I bis')). Under Article 2(1) of Brussels I, pas- sengers also retain the option of bringing the matter before the courts of the defend- ant's (air carrier's) domicile." Therefore, the Claimant had a right to ei- ther file an action in Romania or else the port of departure or Malta, as the place of domicile of the Defendant company. The Adjudicator concluded that the ap- plicable regulation governing the case at hand was Regulation (EC) 261/2004 of the European Parliament. This dealt with com- pensation and assistance to passengers in the event that boarding is denied. On the merits of the case, the Claimant filed copies of the flight tickets. The son's passport had less than 150 days left from the expiry date. According to Turkey's of- ficial website the son had a right to stay for 90 days. The Tribunal agreed with the Claimant that there was no legal right to deny his son from boarding the plane. As to the calculation of the damages, the distance between airports is less than 1,500 km, which satisfied Article 6(1)(a) of Reg- ulation 261/2004, which allowed for €250 per passenger. Since the claim only men- tioned the father and son, damages were set at €500 to which were added the cost of the tickets (€71.88 each) for a total of €643.76. EU legislation allows compensation for those who are denied boarding a flight LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Josef Said Josef Said is an entrepreneur, father and advocate for compassionate end-of-life choices Prolonged suffering and the right to die RESEARCH by Esprimi shows that 61% of Maltese support having the legal right to end their life immediately when suffer- ing from an incurable condition. While the concept of the right to die may seem outrageous to those who uphold moral righteousness, it is unlikely they would maintain such a stance if faced with even a few hours, let alone days, weeks, months, or even years of unbearable suffering and the crushing feeling of being a burden to their loved ones. This is my personal experience. My mother had been in a hospital ward for seven days. She experienced a kind of "locked-in syndrome" and was unable to speak. She could only mumble, her frus- tration turning into desperation, often followed by tears when we couldn't under- stand her. Watching her in this state was unbearable – seven days of helplessness and heartbreak. This was after 20 months of steadily worsening health. On the night of the seventh day, a Fri- day, as her condition visibly worsened, my brother and I were not allowed to stay with her for the night. We were told we didn't have the necessary approvals. We left, only to be called at 3am with the hospital informing us that our mother was moved to intensive care. By 10am the consultant, flanked by two doctors, delivered the news – nothing more could be done. The treat- ment wasn't working, and they would now "focus on making her comfortable". In intensive care, she depended on a mask strapped tightly to her face to breathe. She was claustrophobic, and though sedated, the discomfort was clear. Her expression conveyed what words could not. It was clear to my brothers and I that she was suffering. By Monday, the toll was visible on all of us. My brothers and I were exhausted, and our relatives were struggling with the ex- perience. One can only imagine what my mother was feeling. In desperation, I asked the nurse if there was anything more, they could do to ease her discomfort. Her re- sponse stunned me: "At times, we treat animals better than humans." She grabbed my arm, her eyes with tears, and urged me to "stay strong". On Wednesday, my mother was dis- charged from intensive care – not because she had improved, but to make room for others who could still be saved. That night, I had the night shift. She moaned in pain and discomfort. She often gently squeezed my hands to give her attention... her facial expressions were crying for help which I couldn't give. By morning, when my broth- er came to relieve me, I was emotionally drained. Strong chest pains and a pressing need to cry... but I couldn't. On Thursday at 1pm, the medical team gave my mum the first dose of morphine. She slowly drifted into a state of uncon- sciousness. The medical team assured us she was not suffering and was at peace. My brothers and I believed she was still very aware of what was happening, even if she couldn't communicate or move. Her eyebrows shifted slightly whenever one of her favourite songs from her youth played from the playlist. On Friday and Saturday, her body began to swell, making her almost unrecognis- able. The senior registrar visited daily without fail. I believe more to support us than to do any actual interventions. On Saturday, I commented on something I can't even remember, but it brought the senior doctor to tears. Despite having witnessed countless cases like my moth- er's, she was deeply affected. She wasn't the first staff member I saw visibly shaken that week. On Sunday at 4:30pm, my mother passed away. Her suffering was over, but relatives and medical staff were all left with the pain of watching her endure it. It is hard to comprehend how dogma and a lack of public discourse on end- of-life choices have left us paralysed in inaction. Denying patients, the right to die when their prognosis is final is a profound cruelty – a cruelty so severe that we would not subject animals to. It is a cruelty that serves no purpose oth- er than to prolong suffering and inflict deep emotional pain on both the patient and their carers. Allowing terminal patients the right to die does not take away the option for oth- ers to endure their journey in their own way. It simply provides a choice. One that can bring dignity and hope where there would otherwise be only despair. And despair is the last emotion any terminal patient or their loved ones should have to endure.