THE ESSENTIALITY OF A LARGE HAND LUGGAGE 369 but only with limits on its size. Then, citing the Vueling judgment of the Court of Justice29, referred to by the AGCM, the Court states that in no part of it is indicated what the minimum or maximum dimensions and the number of such bags must be; and that the EU Court itself specifies that price supplements cannot therefore be imposed in relation to these “provided that such hand baggage has certain reasonable requirements in terms of weight and size”. The Court thus shifts the question to the (subjective) criterion of the reasonableness and indispensability. Plus, having established that carriers, like other entrepreneurs, enjoy the freedom to change their baggage policy, without having to follow previous behaviours or habits, wonders if the new dimensions of hand baggage can be considered reasonable, giving an affirmative answer. The TAR also recalls Ministerial Decree No. 1/36 of 28 January 1987 and the related APT-09 circular relating to what is meant by hand luggage. According to the provisions of the circular for hand luggage we mean those items that the passenger can take with him to the cabin to place them in the storage compartments above or under the front seat30. Regarding the volume criteria, since the circular does not refer to minimum, but maximum measures (115 cm), the Court argues that since “technological innovations” have placed flexible objects on the market suitable for storage in small spaces and, since low-cost travel often relates to short travel periods, the new size of hand luggage is entirely reasonable. The Court, therefore, in evaluating the reasonableness, does not take into consideration, neither the market standards nor the behaviour of travellers, who, for the reasons highlighted by the Authority, in order to carry their own large luggage, before the restrictions imposed by the two companies, were use rushing to make sure to get on board among the first ones, to avoid your trolley from being loaded in the hold, albeit at no cost, and who are now willing to buy higher rates, just to bring their personal items with them. 29 Court of Justice of 18 September 2014, in case C.487/12 (Vueling Airlines). 30 The Court adds that the EU Commission in the “guidelines for the implementation/application of Directive 2005/29/EC relating to unfair commercial practices (so-called Guidelines) of 25 May 2016” specifies that “the optional expenses may include those relating to the choice of seat or checked baggage compared to hand baggage”.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==