Court bans Ryanair’s hand luggage fee in Spain

Judge says €20 charge is abusive and declares it invalid

Ryanair says  Spanish court ruling will not affect the airline’s baggage policy. Photograph: Pascal Pavani/AFP

Ryanair says Spanish court ruling will not affect the airline’s baggage policy. Photograph: Pascal Pavani/AFP

 

A Spanish court on Wednesday ruled budget carrier Ryanair’s policy of charging a fee for hand luggage was “abusive” and could no longer be levied in Spain.

The ruling stemmed from a passenger complaint over the policy, introduced last year, which charges most people an additional fee on top of their ticket price for bringing anything more than one personal item into the cabin.

“This ruling will not affect the validity of Ryanair’s baggage policy. It is an isolated case which misquoted the [European Court of Justice] and misinterpreted the airlines’ commercial freedom to determine the size of their cabin baggage,” Ryanair said in a statement.

When asked if it was planning to ignore the Spanish ruling or appeal it in the European Court of Justice, Ryanair declined to comment.

The passenger, travelling from Madrid to Brussels, went to court after airline staff forced her to pay €20 to bring her 10kg luggage on board.

The court ordered Ryanair to refund her the €20 plus interest, but rejected her demand for compensation of a further €10 for the suffering she experienced, according to court documents.

The judge ruled that the hand luggage, by size and weight, could be easily carried in the cabin, pointing to a Spanish regulation that allows passengers to take hand luggage on board at no additional cost.

The judge characterised the charge as abusive, adding that it “curtailed the rights that the passenger has recognised by law”, and declared it invalid in Spain.

She rejected the demand for compensation, however, saying that while doubtless “the passenger suffered rage and powerlessness in having to pay the extra unforeseen cost at the time of boarding” the discomfort did not reach a level that would justify compensation.

The court said in a statement that its ruling cannot be appealed. – Reuters