A passenger apparently assaulted a Ryanair employee following an argument over exceeding the weight limit for luggage at Palma airport. According to CCOO union, the incident occurred on Sunday at the check-in counter when a passenger on a Palma-Madrid flight struck an employee who informed him that his luggage weighed more than the permitted limit. The employee had to be treated by medical staff for the punches he received to the face.
The union has condemned the assault, considering it ‘completely unacceptable’ for passengers to react violently against airport employees. ‘We stand in solidarity with the assaulted employee and demand a review of the current security measures,’ they said in a statement. CCOO will contact Spaniosh airport authority Aena to review the current situation and improve security measures at the airport.
In addition, the union believes it is important for companies to be aware of situations that may increase the risk of assault and to take measures to prevent them. Last week Ryanair welcomed the Brussels Enterprise Court’s ruling which fully confirms that Ryanair’s cabin baggage policy complies with EU law and the Court of Justice of the EU’s authoritative Vueling judgment. The Court held that every Ryanair passenger is entitled to carry on board a free underseat bag of reasonable size and weight, capable of holding passengers’ personal effects and meeting all safety requirements. The Court expressly rejected Test Achats’ claim that airlines must include a larger overhead‑locker bag in the basic fare.
In its judgment, the Court stated “It cannot be argued that RYANAIR does not comply with Article 23 of Regulation 1008/2008… This baggage meets the requirements of Regulation 1008/2008, as specified by the Court’s case law.” The court continued: “Neither Article 23 nor the Vueling caselaw requires an air carrier to accept free carryon baggage of a size larger than that authorised by RYANAIR…” and added “TEST ACHATS’ argument that RYANAIR is legally obliged to include… free carriage of carryon baggage to be placed in the cabin luggage compartments is not upheld… This grievance lacks merit.”
This ruling brings Belgium into line with a long list of authoritative judgments across the EU that have upheld Ryanair’s cabin bag policy, including the CJEU’s Vueling decision, the Italian Council of State, the Berlin Regional Court, the Berlin Higher Regional Court, as well as the Barcelona, Valencia, Valladolid, Sevilla, and Madrid courts, just to mention a few. These courts have consistently confirmed that Ryanair’s free underseat bag satisfies Article 23 of Regulation 1008/2008 and that airlines are free to set prices for optional services such as larger cabin bags and checked baggage.
The Brussels Court also dismissed Test Achats’ claims concerning other Ryanair policies. On Ryanair’s demand-based pricing, the Court found “This grievance lacks merit.” On seat choice, it held “It cannot be considered that the way in which RYANAIR operates is likely to significantly impair the consumer’s freedom of choice.” On family seating, the Court concluded “It cannot be argued that RYANAIR’s practice is illegal. This grievance lacks merit.” With respect to Ryanair’s baggage presentation, the Court stated “This is not objectionable… This grievance lacks merit.”
Importantly, the Court recognised that Test Achats did not hold the required “qualified entity” status, meaning it can no longer rely on rights reserved for EU‑recognised qualified entities—such as presumed standing, participation in cross‑border representative actions, or access to court‑ordered publicity measures.
Ryanair’s Dara Brady said: “We welcome this clear and comprehensive ruling confirming—once again and in line with EU and national courts across Italy, Germany, Spain, and the CJEU—that Ryanair’s cabin bag policy is fully compliant with EU law. Our free underseat bag meets all legal and safety requirements, and customers continue to enjoy Europe’s lowest fares by choosing only the optional services they wish to purchase. We also note the Court’s finding that Test Achats was unlawfully granted ‘qualified entity’ status, significantly reducing its ability to bring abusive and unfounded actions of this kind.”