Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mgh

Passengers 1 Airlines 0 (Round 2)

Recommended Posts

A passenger was not allowed to board an aircraft in Austria because he had tennis racquets in hand baggage. Tennis racquets are prohibited articles under an unpublished Annex to EU Regulation 622/2003. This Regulation deals with the implementation of common standards on aviation securityThe European Court ruled that this Annex this had no binding force because the Annex had not been published. It said that the principle of legal certainty enabled those concerned know precisely the extent of the obligations imposed on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

This rule actually makes sense, think about it:Imagine if he started serving tennis balls at the cockpit door, with no one to return his serve, that would make it an ace, and the last thing the pilots want on their six is an ace. :( Al

Share this post


Link to post
A passenger was not allowed to board an aircraft in Austria because he had tennis racquets in hand baggage. Tennis racquets are prohibited articles under an unpublished Annex to EU Regulation 622/2003. This Regulation deals with the implementation of common standards on aviation securityThe European Court ruled that this Annex this had no binding force because the Annex had not been published. It said that the principle of legal certainty enabled those concerned know precisely the extent of the obligations imposed on them.
This rule actually makes sense, think about it:Imagine if he started serving tennis balls at the cockpit door, with no one to return his serve, that would make it an ace, and the last thing the pilots want on their six is an ace. :( Al
I can see where you're both getting at, and you're both right. Yes, it would be dangerous, but this is something that should really be published.

Share this post


Link to post
A passenger was not allowed to board an aircraft in Austria because he had tennis racquets in hand baggage. Tennis racquets are prohibited articles under an unpublished Annex to EU Regulation 622/2003. This Regulation deals with the implementation of common standards on aviation securityThe European Court ruled that this Annex this had no binding force because the Annex had not been published. It said that the principle of legal certainty enabled those concerned know precisely the extent of the obligations imposed on them.
So let me get this straight. The government wrote a rule that says such and such about tennis racquets and then some airline somewhere followed the rule. The government then said since the government didn't properly publish the rule, the airline should not have followed the rule and probably even owes money now. Is that right? Wackiness. Just pure wackiness. What is this, April Fool's? I wonder how anybody gets through the day over there without feeling like they are part of a Monty Python or Benny Hill episode.

Share this post


Link to post
So let me get this straight. The government wrote a rule that says such and such about tennis racquets and then some airline somewhere followed the rule. The government then said since the government didn't properly publish the rule, the airline should not have followed the rule and probably even owes money now. Is that right? Wackiness. Just pure wackiness. I wonder how anybody gets through the day over there without feeling like they are part of a Monty Python or Benny Hill episode.
Exactly. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri...009:0010:EN:PDFSee Recital 2 and Article 3!The thinking behind it is typical of security services as follows:"If a list of prohibited articles is published then articles not on that list are allowable and can taken on board. But someone might think of an improper use of an allowable article so we need to be able prevent that from being taken on board. By not telling passengers what's not allowed (and by implication what's allowed) we can stop them from taking anything we choose on board and they can't argue with us."Fortunately the Court said that is a nonsense and that we must know what the law requires.Clearly actual security measures still need to be kept secretEDITThe incident occured in 2005 - the law grinds sliowly! Since that the Regulation has be replaced by 820/2008 last year.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri...008:0022:EN:PDFThis does now include the list though I can't find racquets on it!

Share this post


Link to post