I’ve been asked to post details of a sample non-monetary claim and intend to do so in due course.
Meanwhile, here are some links to the relevant legislative framework and case law:
The European Small Claims Procedure.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – see Article 17 requiring “fair compensation”.
The Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag case.
DG MOVE Notice to Stakeholders dated 18 January 2019 – WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND EU AVIATION SAFETY RULES
If this works, it will be DYNAMITE.
Jacko wrote:
The Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag case.
How is this relevant? You have argued (in other threads) that revoking EASA licenses issued by the UK CAA would constitute an infringement of property rights. In this case, the European Court of Human Rights found that revoking a license to serve alcoholic beverages was not an infringement of property rights. What they did find was an infringement on the right to due process.
Yes, I’m sorry, it’s a long judgment requiring a similar attention span and a appreciation of the inter-relation between the Convention and the Charter. If you haven’t time or inclination to read the whole blurb, just look at paragraphs 53 and 55:
A. Applicability of Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1)
53. The Government argued that a licence to serve alcoholic
beverages could not be considered to be a “possession” within the
meaning of Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1). This provision was
therefore, in their opinion, not applicable to the case.
Like the Commission, however, the Court takes the view that the
economic interests connected with the running of Le Cardinal were
“possessions” for the purposes of Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1)
Indeed, the Court has already found that the maintenance of the
licence was one of the principal conditions for the carrying on of the
applicant company’s business, and that its withdrawal had adverse
effects on the goodwill and value of the restaurant (see paragraph 43
above).
Such withdrawal thus constitutes, in the circumstances of the case, an
interference with TTA’s right to the “peaceful enjoyment of [its]
possessions”.
B. The Article 1 (P1-1) rule applicable to the case
54. Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property
(see the Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 27-28,
para. 63). It comprises “three distinct rules”: the first rule, set out
in the first sentence of the first paragraph, is of a general nature
and enunciates the principle of the peaceful enjoyment of property;
the second rule, contained in the second sentence of the first
paragraph, covers deprivation of possessions and subjects it to
certain conditions; the third rule, stated in the second paragraph,
recognises that the Contracting States are entitled, amongst other
things, to control the use of property by enforcing such laws as they
deem necessary in the general interest (see the Sporrong and Lönnroth
judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, para. 61). However,
the three rules are not “distinct” in the sense of being unconnected:
the second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of
interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and
should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle
enunciated in the first rule (see, inter alia, the Lithgow and Others
judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 46, para. 106).
55. Severe though it may have been, the interference at issue did
not fall within the ambit of the second sentence of the first
paragraph. The applicant company, although it could no longer operate
Le Cardinal as a restaurant business, kept some economic interests
represented by the leasing of the premises and the property assets
contained therein, which it finally sold in June 1984 (see paragraph
23 above). There was accordingly no deprivation of property in terms
of Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1).
The Court finds, however, that the withdrawal of TTA’s licence to
serve alcoholic beverages in Le Cardinal constituted a measure of
control of the use of property, which falls to be considered under the
second paragraph of Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1)
The Court went on to apply the principle of proportionality so as to rule (in effect) that the claimant’s entitlement to compensation was precisely nil because he was a tax-dodging scumbag, but that part of the ruling is, hopefully, not entirely relevant to esteemed fellow EuroGA readers 
Jacko wrote:
Yes, I’m sorry, it’s a long judgment requiring a similar attention span and a appreciation of the inter-relation between the Convention and the Charter.Please don’t be rude.
If you haven’t time or inclination to read the whole blurb, just look at paragraphs 53 and 55:
I did read the entire judgement, including paragraphs 62 and 63.
62. The “burden” placed on TTA as a result of the contested
decisions, though heavy, must be weighed against the general interest
of the community. In this context, the States enjoy a wide margin of
appreciation.
Even though the County Administrative Board and the National Board of
Health and Welfare could have taken less severe measures under section
64 of the 1977 Act (see paragraph 27 above), the Court, having regard
to the legitimate aim of Swedish social policy concerning the
consumption of alcohol, finds that the respondent State did not fail
to strike a “fair balance” between the economic interests of the
applicant company and the general interest of Swedish society
63. The Court thus concludes that there has been no violation of Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1).
When this kind of idea came up in the past, the usual problem with getting compensation was that, in the UK at least, you can recover only your economic (financial or otherwise quantifiable) losses.
And a private pilot in GA cannot easily show a financial loss.
It is different for pilots flying commercially, of course. And that may well have been a factor behind lots of things which were going to happen but got postponed over and over. If you simply scare people, over a number of years, eventually most of those affected will comply and the whole problem goes away by itself.
@Airborne_Again, I certainly don’t mean to be rude, but the point of the TTA judgment is that it established, for the first time, that a licence is “property”, the loss of which falls to be considered under the Convention and, since Lisbon, the Charter.
You are absolutely right that TTA’s claim for monetary compensation, having been duly considered under P1-1 of the Convention, failed the test of proportionality, but that was was nothing new. We know from para. 146 of Akhras v. Council that the right to property guaranteed by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, “does not enjoy, under EU law, absolute protection, but must be viewed in the light of its function in society. Consequently, the exercise of that right may be restricted, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of public interest pursued by the European Union…”
So when considering any claim for continued reciprocal recognition of Part-FCL licences, a court may balance the interest of the Union in ensuring that there are “consequences” for escaping Brits against the risk that a few of us who will remain citizens of the EU-27 may find ourselves, metaphorically, in the line of fire.
In fairness, I agree that A_A’s skepticism is fully justified; the principle of proportionality is quite a high bar where the Union itself is under threat. On the other hand, no party going to court can be certain of the outcome.
Jacko wrote:
In fairness, I agree that A_A’s skepticism is fully justified; the principle of proportionality is quite a high barThen I think we are in agreement!
Footnote:
I found this in the DGAC’s application form
Nota 1 : si vous êtes déjà titulaire d’une licence valide délivrée par l’Autorité française concernant une catégorie d’aéronef différente de celui de votre demande, la copie d’une pièce d’identité et le certificat de réussite à l’examen théorique ne sont pas nécessaires.
Which, for those of us who already hold a French national licence, seems a useful concession.
In any case, the political situation is so fluid that a period of fence-sitting seems justified.
[ local copy ]
Note 1: If you already hold a valid license issued by the French Authority for a category of aircraft other than the one in your application, a copy of an identity document and a certificate of passing the theoretical examination are not necessary.
