News

Ombudsman calls for fines over Finnair denying customers delay payouts

Finnair requires passengers to make claims within two months of the flight in question, but the ombudsman says there are no legal grounds for such limitations.

People lining up at the back end of a jet on the tarmac.
The ombudsman alleged that Finland's flag carrier rejects passenger compensation claims without valid reasons. File photo. Image: Hans-Mikael Holmgren / Yle
  • Yle News

The Consumer Ombudsman has called on the Market Court of Finland to prevent Finnair from unjustifiably rejecting passenger compensation claims, under threat of a fine of 300,000 euros.

In a press release on Wednesday the ombudsman alleged that Finland's flag carrier rejects passenger compensation claims without valid reasons.

If passengers wish to file compensation claims for delayed flights, for example, Finnair requires that they must do so within two months of the flight in question. But, according to the Consumer Ombudsman, there are no legal grounds for the limitation.

"The practice of Finnair's customer service unit rejecting claims is an example of a business that is financially and knowledgably more powerful than the consumer seeking to unilaterally and without legal basis dictate the conditions under which the consumer is entitled to compensation," the Consumer Ombudsman Katri Väänänen said in the release.

The ombudsman noted that this case marked the first time that it has brought a case to the Market Court as a representative action.

According to the ombudsman, EU regulations do not specify the time limit within which an air passenger must submit a claim for compensation, and such restrictions are determined by each EU state.

"However, Finnish legislation does not include provisions about time limits that need to be observed in order for passengers to retain the right to compensation under the regulations," the ombudsman's release read.

It said Finnair claims the time limit is an obligation grounded in Finnish law.

"However, Finnair has not been able to clarify in more detail to the Consumer Ombudsman which law the claim is based on," the release read.