=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1296/paper8
|storemode=property
|title=Enhancing the Decision Making Process through Relevant Legal Information in Consumer Law Disputes - a Case Study in Air Transport Passenger Rights
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1296/paper8.pdf
|volume=Vol-1296
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/jurix/Santos14
}}
==Enhancing the Decision Making Process through Relevant Legal Information in Consumer Law Disputes - a Case Study in Air Transport Passenger Rights==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1296/paper8.pdf
Enhancing the decision making process
through relevant legal information in
consumer law disputes - a case study in air
transport passenger rights
Cristiana Santos a,1
a
IDT-UAB
Abstract. This paper aims to describe an initial stage of research related to the
introduction of a new completion to the online dispute resolution landscape in
consumer law domain. The aim is to include a legal layer into the life cycle of
dispute resolution schemes that has not been yet considered. This is part of an
intended support-system that aims to provide both consumers and companies with
meaningful and relevant domain-specific legal information and awareness about
their rights, in order to enhance the decision-making process, to determine the
consumer's legal position at an early stage of dispute, avoiding escalation and legal
action conflicts. The approach is illustrated by means of a case study based in the
area of air transport passenger rights.
Keywords. legal ontologies, information, air transport passenger rights, incidents,
complaint, consumer law, online dispute resolution.
1. Research Motivation
This paper contributes to the ongoing discussion of delivering information to foster
dispute resolution. We will substantiate the need to provide to the disputant parties
relevant legal information regarding their rights in a consumer conflict. Consumer
disputes have impacted interest and are often categorized by time-consumption, cost-
disproportionality and are convoluted into complex procedures. They comprise
acrimonious, since prolonged, legal wrangling which epitomizes long-term damage.
Stakeholders (ombudsman, regulators, ADR/ODR providers, consumer associations,
among others) assume more palatably that the lack of legal information (the concerned
rights) related to the case is linked to the root-cause of disputes [1].
Information disclosure to consumers, as the conventional regulatory tool 2 to
protect consumers and solve disputes, appears to be a classical overregulated domain,
deserving much attention by legal drafters, policy and decision makers, and actors in
the consumer realm. The classical paradigm sustains a pro-consumer disclosure of
1
Corresponding Author:cristiana.teixeirasantos@gmail.com
2
The four consumer protection techniques commonly employed in European contract law are (1)
mandatory pro-consumer arrangements, which must be part of every consumer contract; (2) mandated
disclosure; (3) regulation of entry to and withdrawal from contracts; and (4) pro-consumer default rules and
contract interpretation [5].
information which creates obligations upon suppliers to provide relevant information
about the rights at stake, in order to make aware and better autonomous choices (as the
prototypal autonomy enhancing technique), menorize the “imperfect rationality
problem” of consumers, their asymmetric information, their vulnerability (hypo-
sufficient laymen), and their biased conceptualization of popular law [2][3].
The theory of behavioral economics embedded in consumer policy 3 has been
demonstrating that disclosure of information is not sufficient to avoid consumer
disputes. It asserts that mandate disclosures are neither read nor used (“non-readership”
phenomenon 4 ), and they are beyond most people’s interest or understanding,
notwithstanding the fact that consumers are bestowed with substantive contractual
rights, remedies, disclosures, benefits and cumulative interpretations (that stems from
case law, doctrine and European communications, as we will see in our study). A new
approach is being considered. Effective, “information-user-specific design”
(individual-use information) and “targeted” information disclosure tools are a new re-
conceptualized approach. It recalls the principle of relevance: contextualized,
situational data, which accounts the informee´s interest [6].
It is a fact that consumers need to have the sophistication to know and access their
rights and insist on compliance (empowerment or readiness of consumers, their
"smartening", dispute acculturation or "self-litigation conduct") but at the same time is
required a technological and operational management of the complaint system from
ODR providers and/or from the companies themselves who provide services and goods.
This proposal investigates how can a legal layer (in the air passenger rights domain
- APR) be designed and incorporated into a decision-support system (into the
technological and operational business field)5 that may enhance the decision-making
process of the disputants. We conceive that such a design may portray a new
completion to ODR: a customizing legal knowledge-based support-system that applies
and permeates the market - the locus where disputes occur and thus, enhance better
settlements, redress and replace the balance between consumers6 and the company.
3
Behavioural economics shows that people are often altruistic, not fully rational and not independent
but tend to reproduce their peers’ choices [4].
4
People do not pay attention to standard forms, neither long nor short, in plain language or in legalese,
written or oral, separately signed or unified into one document, handed out in advance or ex post, See
5
In-House Customer Care or Internal Complaint Systems may incorporate this legal cover also in their
mass customization strategy. For the purpose of this paper we will only be concerned with the provision of
the legal cover; undoubtedly, principles such as impartiality and independence are allocated, but we won't
pursue these matters at this stage. It is a plausible deduction that such a legal incorporation may neutralize
and calibrate the pronouncement offered by the internal business policies, which in turn, might improve the
market behaviour and will maintain the legal compliance for every stakeholder. This leads us to the
consideration that the envisioned legal information system can also reward the economic operators, such as
reputable and competitive businesses that render consumer services and goods. As effective consumer policy,
recharged with this legal cover, supports the proper functioning of the single market and drives out rogue
operators, due to clear legal rules and better coordinated enforcement addressed by the companies. We assert
that the market aims good practices to held the consumers allegiance, decrease the number of complaints
(reputation and operational costs), which enables systemic accuracy. We contend that this configuration
(customer centricity) can be seen as a quick response to the sectorial market problems which can incorporate
preventive measures.
6
It is foreseen to be a way to support the dispute and its resolution: consumers can determine their legal
position (to go ahead with the claim or perceive that there is no case at all) at an early stage of dispute (which
can discourage unmeritorious complaints). As such, we assume that consumers may feel entrusted (digital
trust in e-society) and aware if the trader is acting in good-faith when filling a complaining and taking
decision. Hence, we posit that this approach can avoid escalatory versus de-escalatory cycles if not solved in
the earlier stage (and foster ulterior phases of mediation) and potentiates the continuation of relationship with
the trader. Ultimately we can anticipate that providing the legal cover to the consumer as an early
The paper is structured as follows. We firstly analyze the APR problems and
define the research questions. After reviewing previous work in the field, we enunciate
the proposed research methodology. In section 6 we provide a description of the legal
framework model, then we proceed with its expression as a set of ontologies and in
section 7 we conclude.
2. Case-study: Analysis of the Air Passenger Rights Domain
Air transport passenger triggers the top of the consumer complaints ranking in the EU,
even after the entry into force of the EU's Air Passenger Rights Regulation 261/20047
(hereinafter Regulation (EC)) that establishes minimum levels of assistance and
compensation for passengers subject to denied boarding or affected by long delays or
cancellations. This status is affirmed in significant sources. Concerning complaint
handling in 2012 8 , a total of 56,478 complaints were received by the National
Enforcement Bodies (hereinafter NEBs) 9 of the EU member-states. In a more
comprehensive overview, 38% of complaints are attributed to delays and 38% to
cancellations10. According to the 2011 report disclosed by the European Parliament, the
ECC-Net 2011 Air Passenger Rights Report11, the ECC-Net 2012 Annual Report12, and
ECC-Net 2012 Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Air Passenger Rights Sector
Report13, air passenger transport typifies the industry with the highest rate of disputes,
worst reputation and with low resolution rate outside court (airlines are not obliged to
intervention[17] to the conflict, will provide earlier results on impacts on mediation; foster fewer impasses,
produce more concessions leading to agreements (more willingness to compromise). These essentials portray
other estimable prospects: it may avoid overlapping jurisdictions between different ADR bodies (according
to the EU Regulation of ODR) and the burden of proof from the rogue operator is mitigated.
7
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004
establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and
of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, JO L46/1 of 17-2-2004.
All Articles without special notice refer to the Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004
8
SWD (2014) 156 final, Commission Staff Working Document, Document on Complaint handling and
enforcement by Member States of the Air Passenger Rights Regulations. The present document reflects the
period from 2010 to 2012 (by comparing data, where possible, with the previous reporting period (2007-
2009). It thus reflects quantitative complaint handling data provided by the national enforcement bodies
(NEBs) for the period from 2010 to 2012, p. 19.
9
The Regulation (EC) 261/2004, according to its Article 16, obliges Member States to designate
“national enforcement bodies”, a body responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards flights
from airports situated on its territory and flights from a third country to such airports. Where appropriate, this
body shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the rights of passengers are respected. Passengers who
believe they have not been treated correctly should contact the body in the country where the incident took
place.
10
The percentage of cases where NEBs launched sanctioning procedures has doubled (2%) since 2011.
The top 3 countries receiving most complaints remain unchanged: Spain (15 733) where a great proportion of
complaints relates to Spanair ceasing operations, Portugal (6 165) and Germany (5 105), in SWD (2014) 156
final, Commission Staff Working Document, p.19.
11
Available in http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/ecc_net_air_passenger_report_2011.pdf
12
It is worth to illustrate that "(...) air transport was at the origin of more than 20% of all complaints (of
which luggage issues represented only a minor proportion compared to other issues linked to the denial of
passenger rights or unfair commercial practices (...)", p.12, available online in
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/report_ecc-net_2012_en.pdf
13
Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Air Passenger Rights Sector, 2012, by the the European
Consumer Centers’ Network (ECC-Net), p.2, available online in
http://www.ecc.lt/index.php?id=602#.U80gl_mSywd
adhere to alternative dispute resolution schemes due to the fact that they are based on
voluntary bases and thus do not provide binding decisions14).
The ensuing analysis of the air passenger rights settings portrays some of the
causes of consumer detriment in the air transport sector. We are cognizant of the
reasons 15 underlying this malpractice and failure to provide passengers their rights
regarding incidents covered by the Regulation (EC). They stem from: i) existent legal
grey areas; ii) unawareness of passengers’ rights; iii) complex complaint handling
procedures; iv) sanctioning; v) disproportionate financial costs. Concretely:
i) existent legal grey areas: lacking definitions, unclear provisions and varying
biased interpretations of the text of the Regulation (EC) by the airline industry leave
grey zones and loopholes in the passengers' rights, which entail legal inconsistencies
and loose standards in the application of the law, leading to the consequent case-law
produced to date16. Most passengers feel that they lack the knowledge and experience
to properly enforce their claim, regarding the incidents of cancellation or delay,
especially when airlines reject their claim requests or raise a defence of “extraordinary
circumstances-excuse” 17 (under those circumstances air companies are released from
the obligation to pay compensation) or “reasonable measures” (consists of open
textured concepts that require further interpretation in a case-by-case assessment).
Generally, passengers cannot verify the accuracy of these kinds of counter-arguments.
Often airlines abuse from the excuse of "technical failures" to exclude their liability
and it tends to be “accepted” by the passenger. Despite of a proposed legislative
revision18 adopted in 2013 addressing legal uncertainty, only incipient enforcement of
air passenger rights in adapting in light of the judgments of the European Court of
Justice was perceived19.
14
Article 2 of the Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013
on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes.
15
Air Passenger Rights Revision - Frequently Asked Questions Air passenger rights – summary
European Commission - MEMO/13/203 13/03/2013, available online in
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-203_en.htm
16
The most recognized cases brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): case
C-549/07 (Wallentin-Hermann), Case C-22/11 (Finnair), C-402/07 and C-432/07 (Sturgeon and Böck) of 19
November 2009, C-581/10 and C-629/10 (Nelson and others vs IATA, KLM, British airways) of 23 October
2012, C-11/11 (Air France vs Folkerts) of 26 February 2013, whose rulings need to be codified by the
forthcoming legislation.
17
Events that are beyond the airline’s control, such as political instability, meteorological conditions
incompatible with the operation of the flight, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings, strikes
affecting the operation of an operating air carrier, natural disasters; Draft list of extraordinary circumstances
following the National Enforcement Bodies (NEB) meeting held on 12 April 2013, available online in
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf.
18
In 2013, the Commission tabled a proposal to amend Regulations 261/2004 to improve enforcement
by clarifying key principles and passenger rights that have given rise to disputes between airlines and
passengers. The text defines the term "extraordinary circumstances" as events which are beyond the actual
control of the air carrier and provides non-exhaustive lists of both extraordinary and nonextraordinary
circumstances, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending
Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in
the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 on
air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air, COM/2013/0130 final -
2013/0072, available online in http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52013PC0130:EN:NOT
19
BEUC position paper on Air Passengers’ Rights, Revision of Regulation 261/04 on the rights of air
passengers in the event of denied boarding, cancellation and long delays, p.2. Available online in
http://www.beuc.org/consumer-rights-and-enforcement/air-passenger-rights. The European Consumer
Organisation (BEUC, stands for French “Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs”) is an umbrella
ii)unawareness of passengers’ rights: within this industrial realm, the
Eurobarometer survey 20 discloses that almost six out of ten Europeans (59%) are
unaware of their contractual rights and obligations when buying a ticket from an air
transport company; but not only the consumers, both airlines, insurance companies and
travel agencies are often not sure about the details as well. Besides the existent legal
patchwork in APR sector, information requirements, brochures on air passengers’
rights are distributed at every major airport of the Community in all official languages
and further information is given on official homepages and in mobile applications21.
Nevertheless, it seems from the number of complaints that many of these requirements
or information disclosures are not having their desired effect.
iii) complex complaint handling procedure: it has been observed that passengers
encounter difficulties in enforcing their rights as airlines' complaint-handling
procedures are ill-defined, contingent and time-consuming, often featured as ping-pong
pattern queued cases, which ultimately dissuade consumers from lodging a complaint
regarding air travel incidents, or because there is no complaint handling body to turn to
in case of irresponsiveness of the air carrier. The parameterized workflow of the
complaint diverges according to the air carrier: some contend that only the web-form
(their own tailor-made complaint forms) conforms the acceptable and valid complaint;
others embrace a more wider perspective of a complaint, such as the ones submitted by
fax, email or by letter; most of them require adding of proof documents, eg. invoices,
ticket receipt, photos, inventory forms, amongst other documents often demanded,
many of those, laymen can not comply with due to lack of on-the-spot information.
iv) sanctioning: the NEB's responsibility for the application and enforcement of
passenger rights are only of limited help: they cannot manage individual complaints;
they apply different sanctioning policies22 and differently interpret various parts of the
Regulation. Inconsistent or insufficiently enforcement and non-effective sanctioning
policies by national authorities do not give sufficient incentives for the industry
compliance. In this regard, it should be recalled that the sanctioning process is time
consuming and can take several years before sanctions are collected (notably in case of
appeals);
Conversely, we posit that acknowledging this problems may configure a pre-
condition to offer more specific and situated information regarding the guidelines
prompted by the emergent consumer policy and the new information design. Hence, the
consumers' group. It brings together 41 European consumer organisations from 31 countries (EU, EEA and
applicant countries).
20
This research also asserts there is a clear correlation between the passenger’s level of awareness of
his/her rights and the satisfaction with the services received when travelling by air. The data indicates that the
higher the degree of awareness, the higher the quality of services received, see Special Eurobarometer 319 on
Air Passengers’ rights 2009, Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of Directorate General
Energy and Transport Survey co-ordinated by Directorate General Communication, p. 10.
21
Information requirements of Article 14 of the Regulation depicts it is the duty of the airlines to
provide information in two ways: first there must be a legible notice at the check-in counter where to find the
text of the rights in case of a long delay, cancellation or denied boarding; second, in case such inconvenience
occurs, the air carriers must provide a notice containing the rights to compensation and assistance to the
passengers. In addition, the European Commission distributes leaflets concerning air passenger rights at
every airport within the Community, alongside its mobile application for free to check their rights
immediately and on the spothttp://ec.europa.eu/transport/passenger-rights/en/mobile.html
22
Which may include may include inspections, audits, warnings, media contacts, monitoring of
websites, meetings with airlines and stakeholders, consultations, pecuniary sanctions, continuing information
process, monitoring of the ground handling procedures, amongst others), SWD (2014) 156 final, Commission
Staff Working Document, Document on Complaint handling and enforcement by Member States of the Air
Passenger Rights Regulations.
relevant and meaningful legal information will focus not only on the rights (if they
have grounds to lodge a complaint), but also how to address it and to whom in order to
have redress.
3. Research Questions
If ultimately, the stage and the enforcement of the claims regarding the disputes still
depends on each companies' regulation policies and their willingness for settlement (as
ADR/ODR are dispute resolution schemes are based on voluntary bases and thus do not
provide binding decisions) a way to leverage the dispute status could be by endowing
busyness with a legal layer. This assertion substantiates the research questions of the
current study:
• How can the decision-making process of the users be enhanced?
• How to build a framework design for a decision-support system legally embedded?
• Within a human-computer interaction, how can the design of the decision-support
system be user-friendly?
• To which extent the formal constraints imposed by ontological structures imply
limitations on the complete and reliable representation and structure of legal
knowledge, considering also the legal domain features, such as i) accessibility:
technicality of legal language; specialization of the law; multi-level jurisdictions;
subsidiary laws; legislative updates; ii) interpretation of the “terms of art”,
polysemy, ambuiguity of the open texture concepts, vagueness; iii) information
retrieval: the fact of cross-referencing of legislation.
4. State of the Art
In current online disputes resolution systems (the so-called “fourth party” referred to
the technology component in the dispute management), even though the existence of
technological innovation and maturity by the prominent players23, there are no dispute
resolution services (e-government services nor private), nor methods (standard
typology encompasses automated negotiation, computer assisted negotiation, online
mediation and online arbitration) that provides legal information on the content of the
legal rule that applies to a conflict. According to research, ODR experiences show
some difficulties [7]. ODR services have not been so widely developed as envisioned,
mostly due to lack of funding; lack of enforceability of the achieved agreements and
the correlated reluctance from the parties to participate in ODR processes [8], amongst
other factors. Moreover, the ODR Regulation 524/2013 primarily continues to rely on
procedural rules (the coordination between the ADR entities) without approaching to
the substantial content of the dispute, and both their theory and practice are saturated
with the inferences of contact and communications theories paradigm. It proposes i) a
complex procedure: only the complaint is submitted electronically and than it has a
three-phase re-routing system not carried out online, but only through traditional ADR
methods); ii) it is time-consuming: establishes a deadline from 3 up to 6 months for the
23
Only main industrial experiences are predominant and use dispute resolution technologies. It is
recurrently referred as example Colin Rule’s assertion about the 60 million cases solved by e-Bay in a single
year. Nevertheless, outside big marketplaces there are few business models for sustainable ODR systems .
possible settlement; iii) remains difficult to get an agreement: if parties don’t agree
with the ADR body/mediator, the process ends; iv) if the dispute is not solved within
the offers and counteroffers, there is a “time-out period” due to a dislogical
performative structure workflow. Hereby we affirm that ODR is theoretically
incomplete and currently related to procedural aspects. We argue that ODR has been
developing without its own cogent theoretical base [9] which resides in promoting
access to justice and endow consumer protection (empowerment) and redress [10].
Therefore settling agreements "in the shadow of the law"[11], or "in the shadow of
procedure" should not be delegated to self-regulation; a pre-emptive step in addressing
disputes and complaints would be within the law itself.
According to our best knowledge, there is no ontological representation applied to
the APR sector that can describe air transport passenger incidents and endow to the
conflictive parties legal information regarding their dispute. Nevertheless, this is not
the first initiative in this field. From the point of view of this paper’s objective,
Flightright's service 24 is particularly interesting; it calculates the potential
compensation that a passenger might be entitled to in case of cancellation, denied
boarding or long flight delay. The procedure of operation of the Flightright is as
follows. If there is a positive estimation from the compensation calculator (software
module based on an automatic logic), they will manually evaluate the chances of a
successful claim collection. If the prospects are promising, thereby they bring the claim
forward against the airline, tracking its status. It follows that when every airline does
not respond to the demand for payment or declines to pay, Flightright recommends
each user to engage the commissioned lawyers with no further costs.
Analyzing the existent initiatives and their clustered boundaries, we foresee how
to go beyond and improve our rights-based architecture. In fact, Flightright and other
existing companies in the APR domain do not manage baggage incidents (delayed,
missing and damaged baggage) and its corresponding rights - as we intend to use in the
forthcoming future - neither incidents related to service claims (such as
irresponsiveness by the airline; bad quality service; misinformation) which unleashes
also disputes and legitimate grounds of redress.
Also, it should be noted that the contextualized information regarding the
procedures to claim and involved institutional entities are out of the spectrum of the
provision of these services, information which we assume a priori welfare-enhancing
self-litigation and empowering of the decision-making process.
They do not comprehend the whole legal framework (case law, national legislation
prescribing the rights), nor links to official sources that could confirm, e.g., the alleged
weather conditions, strikes, security risks or political crises which entail extraordinary
circumstances.
It is worthwhile to mention that the (EC) Regulation establishes minimum levels of
assistance and compensation for passengers affected by denied boarding or by long
delays or cancellations. It states a minimum standard of compensation regardless of the
fact of an actual damage. Therefore, "further compensation" allows passengers to be
compensated for the entirety of the material and non-material damage they suffered due
to the failure of the air carrier to fulfill its contractual obligations. Hence, passengers
shall retain the right for further claims beyond this minimum standard, through legal
proceedings in court. In this regard, Article 12 stipulates that passengers are not
hindered from further claims, if the damage occurred exceeds the compensation awards
24
http://www.flightright.com/
as under Art. 7. By offering information inasmuch as these service providers are
interested, encompassing a monetary estimation may seem reductant.
4)These services are again of limited help. Their course of action (stage of the
process, enforcement of the claim) still depends on each airline's regulation policies
and their willingness for settlement: only when air carriers are willing to settle with
these service provider, the consumer succeeds.
Considering the complexity of the arguments outlined by this powerful industry,
the range of extraordinary circumstances, the plethora of initiatives on the legislative
agenda on air transport passenger law by the policy-makers (binding or non-binding
legal information resources), we may infer that the calculus of the eventual
compensation fits only the company's interests.
5. Planned Research Methodology and Future Steps
The research methodology to be followed will consist of: i) analysis of the legal
framework concerning APR sector, doctrine and case-law; ii) conceptual analysis
(structuring of the main concepts, from hard and soft law, to build the ontology; iii)
knowledge acquisition - case analysis and natural language processing on complaints
and consumers' requests; iv) definition and selection of the decision-making scenarios
regarding the typologies of the most known used-cases, according to the previous step;
v) ontology building; vi) end users' tests.
Regarding the present stage of research, in order to formalize as ontologies (within
an bottom-up approach) the relevant information in the APR domain, different
procedures were followed combining analytical and experimental work always
considering the end users needs. To this end, hand knowledge acquisition process is
described. We gathered information from the ten's largest airlines. To assemble a
comprehensive representation of the ten’s largest companies, we followed a criteria
related to the number of passengers carried, revenue, number of passenger-kilometers
flown25. We analysed their current general terms and conditions of carriage (passenger
and baggage), their procedures, workflow and their required web-forms alike.
We considered the legal framework related to the air transport passenger domain.
We pondered the relevant legislation, including the Regulation (EC) and supporting
legislation 26 ; consulting 27 and auxiliary 28 official documents were accounted for this
further analysis, as well as official reports29. Significant case-law from the European
25
American Airlines, Air France, Delta Airlines, Lufthansa, Ryan Air, Air China, amongst others, in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_largest_airlines
26
Such as the Communication from the Commission from to the European Parliament and the Council
on the application of the Regulation, COM(2011) 174 final; Commission staff working paper accompanying
document to the Communication; Communication from the Commission from to the European Parliament
and the Council pursuant to Article 17 of the Regulation (EC) on the operation and the results of this
Regulation, COM(2007) 168 final; Communication from the Commission from to the European Parliament
and the Council: A European vision for Passengers: Communication on Passenger Rights in all transport
modes, COM/2011/0898 final.
27
The Commission staff working document: Complaint handling and enforcement by Member States
of the Air Passenger Rights Regulations [SWD(2014) 156] and the Public Consultation for the Proposal of
revision of the Regulation (EC) (19/12/2011 - 11/03/2012).
28
Auxiliary official documents were also accounted, like the passenger rights EU complaint form and
the National competent authorities’ document.
29
The following reports: the Special Eurobarometer on Air Passengers’ Rights and the European
Consumer Centres Network Reports.
Union Court of Justice was regarded to frame the legal framework in APR sector30.
From the surveyed data we had access to structured and substantial information
pertaining to this sector, statistics of air transport cases and their details, development
comparisons concerning previous years, (un)solved cases within ADR schemes,
recommendations and conclusions. The manually retrieved information was used to
model the scenarios and to populate the ontologies' concepts and their dependency
relationships.
Concerning the steps ahead, we will continuously describe the processes and the
decision-making scenarios in which end users are getting involved, concretely, new
typologies of incidents regarding baggage's and service and the correspondent rights,
relying in a legal and empirical research (such as a database of complaints). Also as
future work, it is aimed to connect the information offered and retrieved from pre-
established and structured cases using natural language processing 31 . The obtained
domain knowledge will be modeled, refined and represented formally in Protégé via
the OWL editor, adding further complexity to the of Air Transport Passenger Incidents
and Rights model (ATPIR), as classes, object properties, axioms, and the incoming
ontology population.
We will also reuse terms of related legal ontologies, and will link to legal sources
and official documents and websites (list of the correspondent NEBS, airline contact
list, airline T&Cs, complaint form, list of banned/restricted airlines, official web pages).
Legal expert validation (researchers, academics and professionals) will be regarded, as
well. In order to combine the plausible information, the support system will express a
model with a set of rules (possibly Legal Rule ML) which are in the process of being
defined. As a complement, an initial framework implementation follows (as proof of
concept tool). A simple application is envisioned that might retrieve from the
knowledge base, the specific rights, according to typologies of the most used-cases in
APR domain.
6. Formalization
The ATPIR model is created from scratch by eliciting practical knowledge from
normative sources and complaints and it is iteratively evolving, describing actual
incidents and its circumstances, tackling the complaint processing workflow and is
acquainted with the applicable rights.
These pieces of information are unrelated and their analysis was split into three
different domains, leading to the definition of three related OWL ontologies. The
permanent, resolvable IRI of these ontologies is shown in Erro! Fonte de referência
não encontrada.and the online documentation expresses the description of the classes,
properties and . The ontologies reuses concepts defined in other related vocabularies
such as the provenance ontology (PROV-O) 32 , the LKIF core ontology [12] and
Geonames33.
30
For instance, one right consolidated in jurisprudence (and not in the (EC) Regulation) states that
passengers may be entitled to compensation for flights where delay in arrival in 3 hours or more and when
the delay is not due to extraordinary circumstances.
31
The technical implementation is going to be prompt by InfoCor, a collaborative project held between
IDT-UAB and CogniCor, which works within agreement technologies, http://www.cognicor.com/
32
http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/
33
http://www.geonames.org/ontology/
Table 1. Ontologies and their IRIs
Ontology prefix IRI
Flight Incident atpir-fi http://purl.org/NET/atpir-fi
Complaint Workflow atpir-cw http://purl.org/NET/atpir-cw
Flight Incident Legal Framework atpir-filf http://purl.org/NET/atpir-filf
i) Complaint Workflow Ontology defines the workflow upon which a consumer
might bring a complaint in a valid and complete way when a dispute arises against an
airline. It comprises the iterative steps, such as a) submitting the complaint to the
airline and also to the NEB, avoiding this way irresponsiveness of the airline; and b)
adding proof documents (and which) to sustain the redress request; it specifies the
acceptable standard complaint format and also it identifies the parties involved in the
management of a complaint. The defined complaint workflow seems to conform with
the general procedure of the ten’s largest companies. In this way we may tackle
complex and tailor-made complaint handling procedures, evading difficulties
encountered by passengers in enforcing their rights due to ill-defined, contingent and
burdensome complaint-handling procedures that lack on-the-spot.
ii) Flight Incident Ontology expresses the main flight disruptions that frame the air
transport dispute market, such as a) baggage incidents (delayed, damaged and missing
baggage); b) flight incidents (delayed, cancelled, denied flights); and c) service
incidents (unfair commercial practises, bad quality service and irresponsiveness). These
categories seem to encompass the foremost of the complaints as highlighted in the main
reports, surveys and case-law. Identifying the main incidents may reveal if the
consumer has a case and thus if is eligible for redress (discouraging unmeritorious
complaints).
iii) Flight Incident Legal Framework Ontology models the policies and the legal
sources that establishes the passenger rights. Even though we modeled rights (as our
perspective is user-centric), other deontic modalities are envisioned in the near future,
such as sanctions, obligations, prohibitions and permissions. PassengerRights group
encloses the entitled rights related to the cancelled, denied and delayed incidents, as
defined both in the EC Regulation and in case-law (Information, Assistance, Rerouting,
Compensation, Reimbursement and Return) and defines when and how the rights are
applied, depending on a context. Subclasses of Sources will refer to the policies of the
companies, combined with the existent legal framework (EU Air Transport Law),
which is compounded of the EU Regulation, Communications and the case-law from
the Court of Justice of the EU. We assume this rights-based approach may attempt to
enhance the awareness of passenger's rights and to mitigate the information asymmetry.
7. Conclusion
We consider that applying a technology-assisted dispute resolution support system to
this field may constitute a promising approach. The goal of the design of this intended
legal support system is the delivery of relevant legal information according to the
user´s needs (within a social-legal perspective [13]). mainly air transport passengers,
airlines, but also other stakeholders, such as NEBs, Regulators, business from the travel
sector, consumer centers (like the ECC-Net), in order for them to decide by themselves
to lodge a complaint to the airline, to abandon the actual claim or to adjudicate their
case in court. The use-scenarios can be deployed in a mobile application, before
lodging a complaint or to lodge a complaint. To achieve this goal, structured
normative sources have been demarcated and modeled in ontologies that support
existing domain-specific real-world standards.
We presented the preliminary steps towards the intended system and the
forthcoming work, which is in its groundstage with the limitations of an early stage
proposal, but it is a footstep in the direction of the semantic web applied in the air
transport passengers domain.
Acknowledgments. DER2012-39492-C02-01, Joint Erasmus Mundus Doctorate on
Law, Science and Technology 520250-1-2011-1-IT-ERA MUNDUS-EMJD, RTC-2014
Info_COR 2666-7. This work has been supported by the UAB fellowship. I would like
to acknowledge the guidance and perspective to my supervisor Professor Pompeu
Casanovas of IDT-UAB. Also I would like to express my gratitude and constant
insightful advices to Professor Guido Boella from University of Torino, and the
immense technical support to Víctor Rodriguez-Doncel, from OEG-UPM.
References
[1] Cortés, Pablo. Online Dispute Resolution for Consumers, Online Dispute Resolution Methods for
Settling Business to Consumer Conflicts, Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise
on Technology and Dispute Resolution, Eleven Law Publishing, p.164, 2012.
[2] Sherwin, R. K.. When Law Goes Pop. The Vanishing Line between Law and Popular Culture. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, (2000)
[3] Casanovas, Pompeu. Justícia hiperreal i diàleg en xarxa , J. Monserrat, I.Roviró, (Eds.) XIV Col.loquis
de Vic. La bellesa. Societat Catalana de Filosofia, IEC, Barcelona, pp. 271-278, (2010)
[4] Micklitz, Hans-W, Reisch, Lucia A. and Hagen, Kornelia. An Introduction to the Special Issue on
Behavioural Economics, Consumer Policy, and Consumer Law , JCP, 34:271–276 (2011)
[5] Bar-Gill, Oren, Ben-Shahar, Omri. Regulatory Techniques in Consumer Protection:: A Critique of
European Consumer Contract Law, Common Market Law Review 50: Kluwer Law International.
Printed in the United Kingdom, 109–126, (2013)
[6] Floridi, Luciano. Information: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2010)
[7] Suquet, J, Poblet, M., Noriega, P., Gabarró, S.. Online Dispute Resolution in 2010: a Cyberspace
Odyssey? Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on ODR 2010, CEUR Workshop Proceedings,
Vol. 684 (2010)
[8] Poblet, M. et al., "Tecnologías para la mediación en línea, estado del arte, usos y propuestas", in
Casanovas, P., J. Magre and M. E. Lauroba (eds), Libro Blanco de la mediación en Catalunya
(Departament de Justícia, Generalitat de Catalunya edn, Huygens ( 2011)
[9] Rainey, Daniel; Wing, Leah, Online Dispute Resolution: Theory and Practice: A Treatise on
Technology and Dispute Resolution, Eleven Law Publishing, p. 37 (2012)
[10] Cortés, Pablo, A new regulatory framework for extra-judicial consumer redress: where we are and how
to move forward, University of Leicester School of Law Research Paper Nº. 13-N (2013)
[11] Zeleznikow, John, Bellucci, Emilia, Schild, Uri J., Mackenzie, Geraldine. Bargaining in the shadow of
the law - using utility functions to support legal negotiation, ICAIL, p. 237-246 (2007)
[12] Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., & Boer, A. (2007). The LKIF Core Ontology of Basic Legal
Concepts. LOAIT, 321, 43-63
[13] Casanovas, P., Casellas, N., Vallbé, J.J.: Empirically Grounded Developments of Legal Ontologies: A
Socio-Legal Perspective. In: Approaches to Legal Ontologies:Theories, Domains and Methodologies.
Springer-Verlag (2011) 49–68