Flybondi will sue the province of Buenos Aires to reintegrate a fine of $ 300 million

According to the government of Axel Kicillof, The fine was because Flybondi canceled flights and did not offer “response” to Buenos Aires consumers.

To be able to advance with the judicial claim, Flybondi had to pay the fine, so that the demand will consist so much in the nullity of the penalty as in the reintegro to the company of the amount paid to the province.

“Flybondi will file a lawsuit against the province of Buenos Aires asking that the nullity of the fine be declared due to the vices presented by the resolution imposed by the sanction, and the entire procedure conducted arbitrarily by the Provincial Directorate of Defense of Rights of the consumers and users of the province of Buenos Aires for alleged breaches to certain articles of Law 24,240 of consumer defense, ”said the airline through a statement, this Monday.

He pointed out that, in addition, in order to initiate the demand, he was forced to pay the fine, “which is incompatible with the principle of innocence, as it forces the alleged offender to comply with the sanction before it had been confirmed by a final sentence. ”

The company added that the “unusual” amount of the fine that the province charged is in itself a questionable factor in the judicial. “Flybondi argues that demanding the payment of an unusual and disproportionate fine It affects constitutional guarantees that ensure the defense in trial. ”

The sanction by the Kicillof government was at the end of January and the agency responsible for communicating it was the Ministry of Production, Science and Technological Innovation of Buenos Aires, which leads Augusto Costa (who was Secretary of Commerce during the second presidency of Cristina Kirchner).

According to the province, Flybondi was sanctioned “after confirming his infractions to Law No. 24,240 on Consumer Defense, from 2,400 claims and complaints made by users of the province. ”

Flybondi, meanwhile, listed on Monday, arguments against the penalty. Among others, he presented the following:

From the province, on the other hand, they assured at the end of January (when the fine was imposed) that “the company incurred and continues to incur repeated infractions, such as the suspensions or reprogramming of their flights, the difficulty or impossibility of communicating with the airline to obtain responses and the unfeasibility to opt for reprogramming or the reimbursements of the tickets or of the expenses generated due to the cancellations (as transportation expenses to the airport, loss of hotels, excursions and tour packages, among others). ”