Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An airline passenger

An airline

Representatives

 Legal Bridge Advisors

 Did not attend

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00064147-001

18/06/2024

The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 18th June 2024 and relates to allegations of discrimination on the disability ground.

The complainant alleges that she and her daughter were discriminated against when her daughter, who is disabled, was not permitted to board a flight to Dublin on 27th January 2024. The complainant stated that she was forced to leave the aeroplane and stay in a hotel before flying to Dublin with a different airline, the next day. The complainant is seeking compensation in relation to the discriminatory treatment experienced by her in respect of her and her daughter’s travel to Ireland.

Naming of the parties

I have used my discretion and decided to anonymise the parties to this complaint on the basis that it is related to a child and to alleged discrimination on the grounds of the child’s disability.

The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented

Jurisdiction

I note from the submissions of the complainant that the airline in question has its registered address in Romania and has an office in Dublin. I also note that the alleged discriminatory treatment occurred in Moldova on 27th January 2024.

Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015

Section 46 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 states as follows:

46(1) The provisions of this Act shall extend to and apply in respect of any ship or aircraft registered in the State that is operated by a person who has a principal place of business or ordinary place of residence in the State, whether or not the ship or aircraft is outside the State.

(2) An act which—

(a) is done on or in respect of such a ship or aircraft while subject to the jurisdiction of a country outside the State, and

(b) is required to be done to comply with the law of that country,

shall not constitute discrimination for the purposes of this Act.

The matter of the territorial scope of the Equal Status Act 2000-2015, and section 46 was considered by the Equality Tribunal (as it then was) in A Complainant (on behalf of her son) v An Airline, Dec-S2011-033. The complaint was based on the disability ground.  The complainant was flying on an aircraft registered in the USA and the respondent’s principal place of business was in the United States and the Irish branch was only a small branch. The Equality Officer found it necessary to consider International Law. He observed that the nationality of aircraft is dealt with under the Chicago Convention and the following article is of relevance:

"Article 17”

Nationality of aircraft

Aircraft have the nationality of the State in which they are registered”

 There are various other international agreements that affect the exercise of civil jurisdiction by states. In particular, Article 28 of the 1929 Warsaw Convention on International Carriage by Air, as subsequently modified by other treaties, allowed a plaintiff a choice of jurisdiction but only in relation to damages which refer to death, bodily injury, damage to baggage or damage caused by delay. The Montreal Convention also carved out exceptions where the individual does not have to take a case in the State where the damages occurred. Again, this is where death occurs or there is damage to the body or to baggage.”

 The only matters that can be heard in a Court of another jurisdiction other than the Courts in the country where the aircraft is registered are matters which arise directly under the Montreal Convention. In this context, section 46 of the Acts extends the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts (or in this case the Tribunal) over acts committed on an Irish owned aircraft even where that incident takes place outside the Irish State……. In all the circumstances of the present complaint, then, and particularly in light of international law relating to International Aviation and Section 46 of the Acts, I consider that I do not have jurisdiction to consider this complaint. Therefore, I cannot consider the matters any further”.

Conclusion

Having considered the matter, and on the basis that the airline in question is not registered in the State and that the alleged discrimination took place in another country, I find that the provisions of the Equal Status Act, 2000 do not apply and I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

For the reasons stated above, I find I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.