The person authorised to enforce public interest claims complained to the authority that the employee subject to the procedings had informed a visually impaired passenger that he could only use the airline's passenger service with a medical certificate. The passenger complained that only one English-language form was available on the website subject to the procedure. According to the public interest claimant, the form contains incomprehensible questions and information for a passenger who does not understand English. The public interest claimant called the customer service of the subject of the procedure, where the customer service confirmed the need for a medical so-called fit-to-fly certificate. At that time, the clerk also said that the reason for introducing this rule was to avoid abuses. The public interest claimant stated that the online interface for filing a complaint was not barrier-free, as while a person with a visual impairment browsed the page with reading software or a magnifier, the interface ejected the complainant from there due to inactivity.
The authority held a hearing on the matter, where both parties expressed their openness to reach an agreement. At the hearing, the parties reached the following agreement:
1. The investigated company apologized for the violence and inconvenience suffered by the claimant and stated that it would comply with Act CXXV of 2003 on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities (Ebktv.) and expressed that would act with even greater care in the future.
2. The investigated company undertook to send, within the prescribed period, an internal notice to the airport service staff and customer service staff drawing their attention to the travel rights of visually impaired passengers. The subject of the proceedings also undertook to inform the staff that no fit-to-fly certificate could be requested from the visually impaired passengers.
3. The defendant undertook to provide, within the prescribed period, further training for the airport service staff and for the customer service staff on the travel rights of visually impaired passengers.
4. The subject of the procedings undertook to change the information on who should not attach a medical certificate (eg visually impaired)
in the menu item "Information and services", in the sub-menu item "Special assistance for disabled clients" on its website.
5. The party subject to the procedings undertook to inform the authority and the public interest claimant within the set deadline that it had started the review of the accessibility of the web interface.
6. The company undertook not to use the online complaint handling form for visually impaired passengers in order to make the online interface accessible until the end of the development process indicated in point 5.
Visually impaired passengers can report their complaints via the company's e-mail address and telephone, which are recorded by the complaint handling system, thus facilitating the administration and complaint handling of visually impaired passengers.
7. The defendant undertook to inform the public interest claimant of the customer service changes in the interest of the visually impaired passengers within the set deadline.
The investigated company fully complied with its obligations under the agreement, and informed both the authority and the public interest complainant.
The authority approved the agreement by decision of 21 January 2020.
May 8, 2020.