95 COVID-19 CRISIS AND NON-REFUND OF CANCELLED FLIGHTS BY AIRLINES No anticompetitive practices identified The Autorité dismissed the complaint from travel agencies that accused 90 airlines of agreeing among themselves not to reimburse flights cancelled due to the Covid-19 epidemic and to require passengers to accept credit notes. The Autorité found that there was no evidence of anticompetitive practices. REPORTED PRACTICES acted directly on the operation of the Bil- the COVID-19 health crisis, both with regard ling Settlement Plan (BSP) that centralises to the terms of refunds and to the form of The cooperative Cediv Travel, which spe- financial exchanges between travel agen- the credit offered (validity period, terms of cialises in tourism and travel, along with cies and airlines, in order to impose credit use, etc.). member travel agencies, lodged a com- on passengers. It does however appear plaint with the Autorité for practices imple- that the refund policy of each airline has The company Air France, for example, ini- mented by several airlines, which consisted frequently changed since the beginning of tially offered credit notes and then issued in omitting to issue refunds for flights can- refunds from May 2020. The alleged parallel celled as a result of the COVID-19 epidemic conduct, which in reality was very incons- and imposing the acceptance of credit on Informing passengers istent, appears to be the result of autono- passengers. and obtaining a refund: mous individual responses by airlines, all the DGCA is competent of which were faced with the same major They consider that these facts could consti- The Directorate General for Civil economic shock caused by the COVID-19 tute an abuse of a collective dominant posi- Aviation (DGCA) has jurisdiction to health crisis. The reported practices can- tion and abuse of a situation of economic assess whether airlines fulfilled their not therefore be described as an anticom- dependency. The case was referred to the obligation to inform passengers. petitive agreement. Autorité on the merits, along with a request It has not, however, been excluded that some airlines may have failed to for interim measures. fulfil their obligation under European The Autorité also concluded that there was Regulation No. 261/2004 vis-à-vis no evidence of abuse of a collective domi- passengers, notably regarding their nant position or abuse of a situation of eco- NO EVIDENCE OF rights to obtain a refund for cancelled nomic dependency. It therefore rejected the ANTICOMPETITIVE flights It has also not been excluded complaint and, consequently, the request PRACTICES that they may have imposed credit for interim measures. notes on passengers. The assessment of the compliance This decision does not prejudge an analysis After examining the case, the Autorité consi- of such conduct with the European dered that the information provided by the Regulation does not fall within the in which the Autorité could engage if new travel agencies and Cediv Travel did not jurisdiction of the Autorité de la information regarding the conduct of IATA suffice to prove that a form of concerted concurrence, which is responsible for or the airlines were brought to its attention. practices had been implemented between ensuring compliance with competition airlines on the terms and conditions for the law, but rather that of the Directorate Decision 20-D-21 of 8 December 2020 General for Civil Aviation (DGAC) for reimbursement of cancelled flights. Nor did flights to and from French airports. the evidence in the case suggest that IATA ACTIVATING TRANSFORMATION