EU261 Claims: Newsletter #16
- OSS Team
- Jan 16
- 4 min read
The article reports on case law regarding EU261 claims from around Europe that may be interesting for airline defence strategies or settlement decisions. Although EU261 is a European regulation, national courts unfortunately take very different approaches in its interpretation. Furthermore, court decisions from many jurisdictions are not published and are therefore difficult to access.
Given that our member law firms are experts in dealing with EU261 claims within their respective jurisdictions, they have access to important precedents and are happy to share them.
DENMARK
Legal topic:
The case concerns the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004on whether a national strike constitutes an“extraordinary circumstance” thereby exempting the airline from its obligation to pay compensation to the passenger under the Regulation.
Date:
6.12.2024
Court:
The City Court of Copenhagen
Case number:
BS-16755/2023-KBH
Party names:
Flyhjælp ApS v. BrusselsAirlines
The Court found that the airline had sufficiently documented the strike's impact thus proving that the cancellation was caused by “extraordinary circumstances” pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Regulation. The Court emphasized that, at the time of the flight, national authorities hadurged the airport to reduce its capacity by 80%.
The Court also found that the airline had sufficiently documented evidence that the cancellation could not have been avoided, even if all reasonable measures had been taken.The Court highlighted the fact that the strike also included the airport security staff, further indicating that the circumstance was beyond the airline's control.
Based on these findings, the airline was deemed exempt from paying compensation under Article 5(3) of the Regulation.
Our comments
This judgment is highly favourable and of significant value as a legal precedent, since the national strike only caused a partial shutdown of the airport. This weakens the plaintiff’s argument that a total shutdown of an airport is necessary for it to qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance”.
Legal topic:
The case concerns the interpretation of the term “operating air carrier”, which would be obligated to pay compensation to the passenger in cases of delay or cancellation pursuant to Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
Date:
27.11.2024
Court:
The City Court of Copenhagen
Case number:
BS-2162/2023-KBH
Party names:
AirHelp Germany GmbH v.Brussels Airlines
In this case, the airline argued that it was not the correct defendant, as it had merely sold the tickets. The plaintiff opposed this statement.
The Court referred to Article 2(b) of the Regulation, which defines the term “operating air carrier”, as well as the Wirth case (C-532/2017), where the CJEU clarified two cumulative conditions that must be met for an airline to qualify as the “operating air carrier”. These two conditions are 1) the airline must either perform or intend to perform the flight in question, and 2) the airline must have concluded a contract with the passenger.
The Court specified that, in cases of cooperation between multiple airlines, it is not up to the airline, against whom the claim has been made, to prove that it is not the “operating air carrier”despite its involvement.
In this specific case, the Court found that the airline was not the correct defendant, as 1) the airline was not listed in the travel documents as the operating airline, and 2) the flight number in the documents belonged to an other airline.
Our comments
While the outcome was expected, the Court’s verdict provides a clear and detailed interpretation of what constitutes an “operating air carrier" under Article 2(b) of Regulation 261/2004. More specifically, the Court highlighted the importance of the airline being listed in the travel documents and referenced by the flight number.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that, in cases involving cooperation between multiple airlines, the burden of proof does not fall on the airline to which the claim has been made to prove that it is not the “operating air carrier” and, therefore, is not liable for compensation pursuant toArticle 5(1)(c) of the Regulation.
For these reasons, the judgement is of significant value as a legal precedent .
NORWAY
Legal topic:
Compensation in the case of a drunken passenger delaying the flight.
Date:
30.10.2024
Court:
The District Court of Romerike andGlåmdal
Case number:
24-035251TVI-TROG/TEID
Party names:
KLM vs two passengers
Two passengers succeeded in their claims against KLM after their flight was delayed for two hours due to problems with a drunken passenger. During the trial, the passengers stated that they had seen the passenger in question drinking at the airport for several hours and that said passenger was excessively intoxicated before the KLM flight was due to depart from Stavanger Airport to Amsterdam. The passenger was nevertheless allowed to board the plane but, before it could take off, the crew decided that said passenger was unfit for travel. This caused the flight to be delayed and consequently, the two claimant passengers missed their onward flight connection from Amsterdam. After evaluating the evidence of the case, the court decided that the drunken passenger should have been refused boarding. As a result, the claimants were awarded EUR 1,200 in compensation and KLM was ordered to pay the legal costs.
SWEDEN
Legal topic:
Punctual filing of claims and choice of law clause under airline contract terms.
Date:
19.12.2024
Court:
The Court of Appeal for WesternSweden
Case number:
FT 2537-24
Party names:
Confidential
Among other things, the case concerned the question of whether the claimant had filed the matter in court within the required timeframe. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the contract for the airline ticket was between the Belgian airline and the passenger, who agreed to the airline's general terms, including a choice of law clause favouring Belgian law. The clause required any legal action to be initiated within one year from the flight date. Thus, according to the Court of Appeal, it should be understood that legal action must necessarily begin within one year from the flight, and that merely presenting a claim by email to the airline within that timeframe is not sufficient. Moreover, the one-year limitation period, which aligned with Belgian law, was deemed not to be an unfair contractual term. Since the legal action was not initiated at court within the one-year timeframe, the passenger’s claim was dismissed and the district court's decision, in alignment with the airline's position, was upheld.
