Sometimes people argue about minutes in court.
This time it was about 300 euros compensation for a delay.
But the plaintiff from Nuremberg came away empty-handed.
Erding / Airport - The Erding District Court is often about the airport.
Hundreds of complaints about delays and compensation resulting from the European Air Passenger Rights Regulation are fought here every year.
It is not uncommon for the Erdinger judgments to affect the jurisprudence of other German and even European courts.
A process could have this effect.
A Nuremberg citizen had sued the target court.
He wanted 300 euros for a delay.
Dr.
Stefan Priller, spokesman for the local court, reports that the plaintiff flew from Montego Bay in Jamaica to Erdinger Moos on March 1 of last year.
The scheduled arrival time would have been 8:20 a.m.
In fact, the machine didn't touch down until 11:13 a.m.
At 11:18 a.m. she reached her parking position.
The Franconian was able to leave the machine at 11.21 a.m.
These exact times are not nitpicking, but were of decisive importance for the negotiation.
According to Priller, during the hearing the plaintiff submitted that the earliest opportunity to get out of the car was at 11:21 am, because at that minute the seatbelt signs had gone out.
As a result, the delay was more than three hours, which justifies the payment of EUR 300.
The airline made a different calculation.
Their representatives said the doors had been opened at 11:19 a.m. - just within the three-hour period.
Therefore she is by no means liable to pay damages.
The court took the same view and dismissed the lawsuit in full based on the evidence.
The spokesman said it was not convinced of the accuracy of the passenger's information.
The plaintiff - according to the court - is in principle required to provide evidence of a relevant delay which, according to the case law of the European Court of Justice, is to be assumed for a flight over a distance of more than 3,500 km from three hours.
However, it should not be based on the point in time at which the claimant was specifically able to leave the aircraft, but on when the aircraft doors were opened.
From then on, passengers are no longer subject to the restrictions imposed by being on the plane.
Not even a summoned witness was able to help the Nuremberg man who assured him that he was still sitting in his seat at 11.21 o'clock because the corridor was full of passengers.
The court appealed to the head of the control center, who quoted from the handwritten documentation of the flight that the doors had just opened at 11:19 a.m.
From his experience, he reported that passengers are usually allowed to disembark immediately afterwards.
Given this evidence, the court held that evidence of the correctness of the plaintiff's allegation had not been provided and dismissed the claim.
The plaintiff's appeal against the Landshut regional court also failed.
The judges, according to Priller, were unanimously of the opinion that the district court had correctly assessed the evidence regarding the question of the point in time at which the passengers were able to leave the aircraft.
They rejected the appeal.
The judgment of the Erding District Court is therefore final (Erding District Court AZ. 4 C 2410/19).
