Aircraft Impounded in Austria Over Passenger Compensation Dispute
A court bailiff in Austria boarded a Ryanair aircraft and affixed a seizure notice to the cockpit due to the airline's failure to comply with a court order. The order mandated payment of €890 to a passenger as compensation and reimbursement of legal costs for a delayed flight. This incident highlights the legal powers available to enforce passenger rights within the European Union.
The flight delay in question occurred two years ago on a Ryanair service from Linz to Majorca, which was held up for 13 hours. After the airline failed to provide the compensation owed, the passenger took the matter to court. The Traun District Court ruled in her favor, ordering Ryanair to pay. When the airline refused, the passenger requested Austrian authorities to initiate enforcement proceedings.
Enforcement Measures Taken
Acting on the court's instruction, the bailiff attached a property seizure sticker, known as a 'cuckoo sticker,' to the aircraft. This sticker grants the court legal control over the asset. Should the debt remain unpaid, the court holds the authority to sell the Boeing 737 at a public auction.
The flight crew was unable to hand over the €890, as Ryanair operates on a cashless basis. Despite the seizure notice being placed, the aircraft was subsequently permitted to depart for London.
A spokesperson for Linz Airport commented on the situation, stating: 'We were informed of an outstanding legal claim against Ryanair and that the Traun District Court had instructed a bailiff to take official action. We escorted the bailiff to the aircraft where he performed his duties.'
The passenger's lawyer has indicated that she intends to continue with further enforcement actions.
Ryanair has disputed the claim that the aircraft was impounded. The dispute between the airline and the passenger originated in 2024. Under EU Commission regulations, passengers are entitled to compensation of €600 for flight delays of three hours or more.
This case underscores the importance of consumer rights in air travel and demonstrates the legal recourse available when companies fail to adhere to court rulings. The issue of passenger compensation remains pertinent, and this event may set a precedent for similar enforcement actions in the future.