Tag Archive for: Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 and the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” in air transport

October 2026: The Digitalisation of Land Transport Begins

/in , , , /by

The road transport sector, which has for years been calling for innovation and improvements, both to optimise operations and to enhance the quality of life of its workers, is now driving transformation across a wide range of areas. Promoting more sustainable vehicle fleets, regulating autonomous vehicles and ensuring more efficient and safer monitoring of road transport are now among the top priorities in Europe and Spain, whilst at the same time presenting new challenges in the regulatory sphere.

In line with this roadmap, the legal framework set out in Regulation (EU) 2020/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 on electronic freight transport information (eFTI), designed to facilitate the electronic communication of regulatory information relating to the carriage of goods within the territory of the European Union.

The eFTI Regulation sets out rules for the electronic sharing of freight transport information between businesses and authorities, without requiring a specific document, but rather a common method of accessing the shared data. Furthermore, the aim of this systematisation is to ensure that all information is reliable and verifiable, with guarantees of authenticity, integrity, traceability and clarity, whilst minimising delays caused by paperwork and redundant or avoidable administrative procedures.

Digitisation of the Administrative Control Document (DeCA)

Act 9/2025 of 3 October on Sustainable Mobility (published in the Official State Gazette No. 291 of 4 December 2025, and in force since 5 December 2025), stems from the aforementioned European regulation, and one of its aims is to facilitate the establishment of an efficient, sustainable and resilient multimodal freight transport system, harnessing the potential of digitalisation and technology.

In its eighth transitional provision, concerning the digitisation of the administrative control document required for the provision of public road haulage services and the journey log required for the provision of public road passenger transport services, it states that the administrative control document must be in digital form within ten months of the law coming into force. It is worth remembering that this document must be issued for all public goods transport, except in certain specific cases such as removals or light parcel deliveries, amongst others.

Therefore, the administrative control document must be in digital format from 5 October 2026(although it appears that some companies and self-employed workers have already been using it on a voluntary basis since mid-2025, in order to gradually adapt to electronic systems).

The requirements and characteristics that administrative control documents must meet, in their capacity as a mandatory administrative record accompanying goods transported by road and containing details of the shipper, the carrier and the vehicle, as well as the date, the origin and destination of the load, the characteristics of the goods or any observations to be included, are already regulated by Order FOM/2861/2012 of 13 October (amended by Order TRM/282/2026 of 25 March). This Order is supplemented by the Resolution of 22 May 2023 issued by the Directorate-General for Land Transport, which sets out the specific requirements for the electronic version of that document (DeCA).

A document that incorporates the details of the consignment note and the CMR contract, as set out in Article 2.2 of the aforementioned Order FOM/2861/2012: “2. In cases where the transport is documented in a consignment note or other supporting documentation in accordance with the relevant national, European Union or international legislation in force, this shall serve as an administrative control document provided that it contains all the information set out in Article 6 of this Order.”

Order FOM/2861/2012 also states that the contractual shipper and the actual carrier are responsible for ensuring that the control document exists and is correctly completed, as well as for the obligation to carry it in the vehicle. According to the document, the shipper was responsible for data relating to the cargo and the contract, whilst the carrier was responsible for information relating to the performance of the transport. However, following the amendments introduced by the recent Order TRM/282/2026 of 5 March (Article 2), responsibility for ensuring that the control document exists and is correctly issued is now shared between shippers and carriers. Although Order TRM/282/2026 does not specify who is responsible for producing it, it does confirm that both parties will be jointly and severally liable if the document is missing or contains errors.

In any case, regardless of who issued it, the document must be available in digital format before the vehicle leaves its point of origin.

Electronic Consignment Note (eCDP) and Digital CMR (eCMR)

Digital consignment notes or CMR contracts are the electronic version of the paper document that supports the transport of goods by road (domestic or international) agreed between the shipper and the carrier, and their main purpose remains to prove the existence of a transport contract (and its terms and conditions), as well as the carrier’s receipt of the goods. Although their digitisation is not yet mandatory, this is also a feasible option given their link to the administrative control document.

In fact, a domestic consignment note must include the minimum information required by law, as set out in Article 10 of Law 15/2009 of 11 November on contracts for the carriage of goods by land; similarly, the content of a CMR contract must meet certain minimum requirements under the CMR Convention for international transport (Article 6). However, this does not prevent them from including the information required for the administrative control document (Article 6 of Order FOM/2861/2012), thereby facilitating the issuance of a single digital document that complies with the parameters and requirements for the carriage of goods by road.

Conclusions

Among the most significant improvements expected to result from the proposed document digitisation project are key aspects such as:

  • To facilitate administrative inspections of transport operations.
  • To assist interested parties in issuing and obtaining copies of transport-related documents.
  • To ensure security by guaranteeing that documents (reports, terms and conditions, cargo details, reservations or ‘remarks’, etc.) cannot be altered.
  • To facilitate real-time monitoring of transport.
  • Enable modifications to be made during transport.
  • To streamline the service billing processes.
  • Reduce administrative costs.
  • To obtain reliable and accurate evidence for use in legal proceedings.
  • Facilitate the claims process.

Undoubtedly, the ultimate aim is to improve efficiency and traceability, but this will also require strict compliance with data protection and confidentiality regulations, as the information shared must be underpinned by an ecosystem of certified and interoperable platforms.

Focusing on our sector, it is worth noting that this approach also aims to facilitate the resolution of disputes between carriers and shippers, thanks to its immutability and digital security. We must not forget that, in any claim or incident arising in the context of a road transport contract, the admissibility of evidence is an essential and decisive factor in the defence of the positions of the parties involved.

Access the article…

The Strait of Hormuz Under International Law: Sovereignty and Freedom of Navigation in Conflict

/in , , , /by

Author: Verónica Meana Larrucea / AIYON ABOGADOS S.L.P.

The Strait of Hormuz has once again taken centre stage in the international maritime legal debate. Since the outbreak of the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran on 28 February 2026, Tehran has been progressively tightening its control over transit through the area, imposing prior authorisation requirements, selective restrictions and transit fees on certain vessels. The escalation intensified from 13 April onwards, when the United States launched Operation Epic Fury, which involves coercive naval actions against vessels linked to Iran and has led to the mass diversion of commercial traffic and the immobilisation of several Iranian oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

The strategic importance of the strait is beyond question: approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil and a substantial proportion of liquefied natural gas pass through it every day. Any disruption to this vital artery has immediate consequences for energy markets, maritime transport and global trade. But beyond the geopolitical dimension, the conflict raises a legal controversy of the first order regarding the limits of state control in international straits and the scope of the principle of freedom of navigation.

The relevant legal framework is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, Montego Bay, 1982), which distinguishes between the regime of innocent passage—applicable to territorial waters and granting the coastal State a wider scope of control—and the special regime of transit passage set out in Articles 37 to 44 for certain international straits. The latter recognises a right of continuous and expeditious transit which coastal States may not impede or suspend.

Iran maintains that the context of armed conflict entitles it to adopt control measures comparable to the regime of innocent passage. The majority of the international community argues, on the basis of Article 44 of UNCLOS, that the special regime of transit passage applies to the Strait of Hormuz, which precludes the imposition of prior authorisations or general restrictions on maritime traffic.

The dispute also involves a legal paradox of considerable significance: neither the United States nor Iran has ratified UNCLOS. Washington, on the one hand, considers that its fundamental provisions form part of customary international law and are therefore binding even on non-party states. Iran, on the other hand, invokes the doctrine of the persistent objector: having expressed constant and systematic opposition to the regime of transit passage since the very negotiations of the Convention, it denies that this regime is enforceable against it as a rule of customary law.

However, a significant body of legal scholarship holds that the freedom of navigation through international straits existed even before UNCLOS. In this regard, the International Court of Justice had already recognised in the Corfu Channel case (1949) the right of passage through international straits without prior authorisation from the coastal State, a principle it reaffirmed in Nicaragua v. United States (1986) by confirming that freedom of navigation remains in force as a customary rule regardless of its subsequent codification in treaties. However, the Corfu judgment also established a key limitation: unilateral actions by a State in foreign waters — in that case, the Royal Navy’s mine clearance in Albanian waters — infringe upon the territorial sovereignty of the coastal State even if carried out in the name of freedom of navigation. That unresolved tension between sovereignty and freedom of passage remains at the heart of the problem in the Strait of Hormuz today.

Two further issues merit attention in this dispute. Firstly, Iran’s proposal to impose tolls on maritime transit is in direct conflict with Article 26 of UNCLOS, which prohibits the imposition of charges for the mere passage of vessels, except where such charges are in return for services actually rendered to the vessel. Unlike artificial canals such as Suez or Panama, the Strait of Hormuz is a natural strait whose legal regime is based on freedom of transit. Oman, also a coastal State and a party to UNCLOS, has publicly rejected this possibility.

Secondly, and conversely, Article 39 of UNCLOS imposes on ships in transit themselves an obligation to refrain from any threat or use of force against coastal States, a particularly sensitive issue in light of the US naval operations currently underway.

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates that international maritime law remains, ultimately, a delicate balance between state sovereignty and freedom of navigation. The dispute pits not merely two conflicting legal interpretations against one another, but two distinct conceptions of the limits of state control in one of the world’s most strategic maritime corridors. Its resolution — or its prolongation — will have consequences that extend far beyond the waters of the Persian Gulf.

Access the article…

Enrique Ortiz Outlines the Legal Status of the Vessel “MV HONDIUS” in Light of the Serious Health Crisis Unfolding on Board

/in , , /by

We would like to thank the local media outlet “La Voz de Canarias” for turning to our firm to gather and report on the situation regarding the vessel “MV HONDIUS,” which is currently conducting its evacuation operation from the port of Granadilla on the island of Tenerife.

Enrique Ortiz Bastos, our partner and colleague at the Cádiz office, provided a detailed response to the legal issues raised by the situation in the context of the law of the sea, the actions of public health authorities, and the division of responsibilities among institutions. Enrique thus emphasized the importance of implementing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which must, in this case, be applied in conjunction with the International Health Regulations of 2005  of the World Health Organization (WHO). He also emphasized the need for the various institutions and agencies involved to work very closely with the Captain in order to find the best solution to this serious situation.

The “Certificate of Free Practique” takes on particular importance in this scenario; we discussed this certificate in our October 2021 article, “Impact of COVID-19 on Ship Operations in Spanish Ports” when we were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This certificate consists of a sworn statement made by the ship’s captain regarding the health situation on board. In any case, however, the final decision on whether to authorize the ship’s entry into port will always rest with the Ministry of Health, through the Foreign Health Service, acting in coordination with the Tenerife Port Authority.

Our partner emphasized that the flag state would not bear direct responsibility for the actions of the captain or the shipowners in the event of an epidemic or infection on board, although this does not preclude the captain and the shipowners from being held accountable for the statements they make and the actions and measures they take. Therefore, both parties could face administrative, civil, or criminal liability if they fail to provide the necessary information accurately, fail to comply with onboard protocols, or fail to cooperate with the relevant authorities, thereby minimizing the serious impact of the situation on their passengers, crew, and any third parties who may be affected.

1st Conference on Maritime Law – ELSA UPV/EHU

/in , /by

We at AIYON Abogados are delighted to share news of our participation in the “1st Maritime Law Conference” organised by ELSA UPV/EHU, held on 5 and 6 May at the Naval Command in Bilbao and at the Sociedad Bilbaína.

Our partner Mikel Garteiz-goxeaskoa had the privilege of speaking as a panellist in the “Merchant Navy” session, addressing the basic rules of maritime safety, compliance monitoring by the authorities, and the penalty system. We hope that his presentation proved useful to those in attendance, particularly for those taking their first steps in the fascinating world of Maritime Law.

The conference covered topics such as security, the merchant navy, underwater cultural heritage, and so on. As Laura Almodóvar noted at the close of the event, maritime law is not an abstract concept but something that “permeates” reality, and specifically the day-to-day operations of the maritime and port sector and international trade.

Our heartfelt thanks go to the organisers for this initiative and for the trust placed in us by Laura Almodóvar Cobo and Joritz García Pérez, president and vice-president of ELSA UPV/EHU, as well as to their team, to whom we offer our sincerest congratulations for their hard work and dedication, which have produced this magnificent result. Given the large audience in attendance and the quality of the programme on offer, with much still to be discussed and developed, we hope that these conferences will continue for many years to come.

Thank you, too, to all the distinguished speakers for their excellent presentations:

  • CN Tomás García-Figueras – Bilbao Naval Command
  • Commander Justo Solano García – Spanish Navy
  • Lieutenant Colonel Antonio Cantero Álvarez – Civil Guard
  • Prof. José Manuel Martín-Osante – Professor of Commercial Law, UPV/EHU
  • Pilar del Campo Hernán – Historical Archive of the Spanish Navy
  • Xabier Armendáriz – Maritime historian
  • Prof. Mariano J. Aznar Gómez – Professor of International Law, Jaume I University
  • Julio Carlos Fuentes Gómez – Deputy Director-General for Maritime Regulations, Directorate-General for the Merchant Navy
  • Miller Wells – Global Factors
  • José María Pedrosa – Director, Howden Pesca Norte
  • Prof. Iñaki Zurutuza Arigita – Public University of Navarre

Nor should we forget the partners who made this conference possible, including: the Sociedad Bilbaína, the Spanish Navy, the University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, the Royal Spanish Naval League, Cepesca – the Spanish Fishing Confederation, Howden, the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, the ERDF and the State Research Agency.

The sea has much to teach us, and the law has much to say about it.

See you at the “2nd Maritime Law Conference”!

Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 and the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” in air transport

/in , /by

The General Court of the European Union – Judgment in Case T- 134/25 of January 21, 2026 addresses several key issues related to Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004, particularly with regard to the concept of “extraordinary circumstances” and how to analyze complex delays in air transport.

Beyond the specific case, the ruling introduces a more technical view of how air transport actually works, attempting to balance passenger protection with the operational reality of airlines.

As we know, Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 ensures that passengers receive compensation when their flights are significantly disrupted, such as denied boarding, cancellations, or long delays. However, airlines may be exempt if they can prove that the cause was an “extraordinary circumstance,”understood as an event beyond their control that could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may arise, in particular, in cases of political instability, weather conditions incompatible with the flight, safety risks, unexpected flight safety deficiencies, or strikes affecting the operations of an air carrier (provided that they are beyond its effective control and were not foreseeable).

This is stated in the GCEU ruling itself: “[…] the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No. 261/2004 must be interpreted strictly, and the cumulative requirements that must be met for events to be considered ‘extraordinary circumstances’ must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

Similarly, Article 5.3 of the aforementioned European Regulation states that an air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation if it can prove that the cancellation is due to “extraordinary circumstances”that could not have been avoided, even if it had taken all reasonable measures within its power. This article has generated numerous legal disputes regarding the definition and scope of these alleged circumstances, which an airline may use to exonerate itself and which passengers generally do not have access to.

Now, the European Court recognizes in its ruling that certain decisions by air traffic control bodies may indeed constitute “extraordinary circumstances.” This means that delays caused by factors beyond the airline’s control, such as operational restrictions imposed by air traffic controllers, may exempt it from liability, provided that they are beyond its effective control and there is no negligence on the part of the carrier. Therefore, if a delay is due to the airline’s internal planning or failures, the exemption does not apply.

In situations where a flight is delayed for various reasons, the ruling allows for separating and analyzing which part is due to an extraordinary event. If a partial delay is due to a justified external cause, only the remainder may be considered when calculating compensation. The ruling accepts that delays caused by problems occurring on previous flights of the same aircraft may be considered “extraordinary circumstances,” provided there is a direct causal link with the final delay, thus allowing the entire context of the operation to be assessed.

This resolution has important implications in that it provides legal certainty by offering guidelines on how to assess specific cases. By defining such an ambiguous concept as “extraordinary circumstances,” the      GCEU ruling of January 21, 2026, represents a significant jurisprudential advance in establishing a more balanced and realistic framework for the relationship between airlines and passengers in the air transport sector.