EU261 Claims: Newsletter #14
- OSS Team
- Sep 15, 2024
- 7 min read
The Newsletter 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.
CZECH REPUBLIC
Legal topic:
Compensation for denied boarding –concept of “check-in”.
Date:
29.07.2024
Court:
District court of Prague 6
Case number:
14 C 7/2024
Party names:
Confidential
The passengers were seeking compensation for allegedly being denied boarding. However, the air carrier argued that the passengers arrived at the gate late, contrary to the time for boarding specified in the air carrier ́s conditions of carriage (no later than 20 min before the departure).
The court thus ruled in favour of the carrier and dismissed the lawsuit, as it was not a case of denied boarding. More importantly, the court interpreted the term “check-in” to include in this case, inter alia, the obligation of passengers to arrive at the gate on time, no later than the time specified in the air carrier ́s conditions of carriage.
Legal topic:
Obligation to reimburse the State for translation costs.
Date:
01.08.2024
Court:
Municipal Court in Prague
Case number:
19 Co 257/2024
Party names:
Confidential
In this case, a settlement was reached and the court proceedings were terminated. However, the court ruled that the air carrier (based and operating abroad) was obliged to pay the state ́s legal costs for translation of the lawsuit and summons from Czech into a foreign language.
An appeal has been filed. The Court of Appeal overturned the judgment, confirming that the translation of court documents falls within the fundamental right of persons and entities to act before the court in their native language, thus ensuring equal opportunity to exercise their rights.
DENMARK
Legal topic:
The case concerns the interpretation of
Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No.
261/2004 regarding the airline’s obligation to refund the full ticket price in the event of a flight cancellation when the tickets were purchased through an OTA (Online Travel Agency) that charges passengers an additional fee for their services.
Date:
28.07.2024
Court:
The Eastern High Court
Case number:
BS-1125/2024-OLR
Party names:
Ryanair Limited vs Travelrefund
ApS
The passengers in this case had purchased two tickets through an OTA for a total of 5,166 DKK. However, the airline only received 3,911 DKK, due to the OTA charging the passengers a
service fee. The plaintiff argued that the airline was obligated to refund the full amount paid by the passengers, including the OTA’s fee.
The High Court found that there was no evidence indicating that the airline had agreed to or was even aware of the OTA’s additional fee and therefore, the airline was only required to refund the amount received from the OTA, i.e. 3,911 DKK, in accordance with Harms v. Vueling (Case C-601/17).
Our comments
From a legal point of view, this outcome obviously comes as no surprise – i.e. you only refund what you received. But the decision once again reiterated the (unjust) burden of proof on the airline, since the starting point is that anything paid by the passenger to an OTA must be refunded by the airline unless the airline can prove, or even document, that it did not receive the full amount.
If not already done, this judgement encourages finding out whether the plaintiff’s claim is equivalent to the amount the airline received from the OTA and whether the airline can easily clarify exactly what it received from the OTA.
Legal topic:
The case concerns whether an airline’s
decision to divert to a different airport within the same country due to severe weather conditions, which, under EU Regulation 261/2004, constitute an "extraordinary circumstance", exempts it from paying compensation to the passengers.
Date:
03.06.2024
Court:
The Western High Court
Case number:
BS-8669/2024-VLR
Party names:
Jettime a/s vs Fuga Mora ApS
The flight in this case was scheduled to land in Billund but was diverted to Copenhagen due to dangerous wind conditions and heavy rain during the landing approach. This diversion resulted in a delay of over 13 hours for the passengers, who were eventually transported to Billund, the original end destination, by bus.
The court ruled that the weather conditions qualified as an "extraordinary circumstance" under Article 5(3) of EU Regulation 261/2004 and thus justified the airline’s decision to divert the flight. Additionally, the court found that the airline had taken all reasonable measures to minimize the delay, such as arranging transportation for the passengers to Billund once it was safe.
The court’s decision was largely based on an Air Safety Report signed by the flight’s captain, which triggered the airline’s decision to divert the flight due to safety concerns. The report was introduced as evidence in the High Court and was therefore not considered in the City Court.
As a result, the airline was exempt from paying compensation to the passengers.
Our comments
It is worth mentioning that the court stated that the presentation of additional documentation after the City Court’s judgement did not provide basis for considering the airline to have withheld documents or engaged in unnecessary procedural steps. Consequently, there was no justification for requiring the airline to cover the legal costs.
This judgment highlights the importance of presenting thorough documentation, such as an Air Safety Report (where applicable), when claiming the existence of an "extraordinary circumstance" as a defence against compensation claims. It also encourages airlines to consider the potential benefits of submitting such evidence at the earliest stage of legal proceedings.
GERMANY
Legal topic:
Obligation of passengers to check entry
requirements before departure.
Date:
27.02.2024
Court:
Amtsgericht München
Case number:
223 C 19445/23
Party names:
Confidential
The passengers were not allowed to board their booked flight to the Maldives as their child only had an extended passport. The reason for this was the change in entry regulations for
the Maldives after the time of booking, according to which extended children's passports were no longer acceptable. The court dismissed the traveller's claim and justified its decision by stating that the travel operator had fulfilled its duty to provide information before the contract was concluded. The travel operator was not obliged to inform the travellers about changes to entry regulations. Travellers must inform themselves about the current travel regulations of the destination and ensure that they comply with them.
NORWAY
Legal topic:
Limitation period for claims for standard
compensation.
Date:
27.06.2024
Court:
Supreme Court in Norway
Case number:
HR-2024-1200-A
Party names:
Scandinavian Airlines System
Denmark-Norway-Sweden against Airhelp Germany GmbH
A flight was cancelled due to a pilot strike and the passenger was entitled to EUR 250 in standard compensation. As the airline refused to fulfil the claim, the case was brought to court and went all the way to the Supreme Court in Norway.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the limitation period for claims for standard compensation follows the general three-year time limit in the Norwegian Limitation of Claims Act or a special two-year time limit in the Norwegian Aviation Act.
Section 10-29 in the Norwegian Aviation Act chapter 10 sets a limitation period of two years for claims under “this chapter”, starting from the day of the aircraft's arrival at destination, or
from the day it should have arrived, or when the transport was interrupted. The limitation period in the Norwegian Limitation of Claims Act Section 2, however, is three years after the day on which the damage occurred, or the service was not provided in accordance with the agreement.
The majority of three judges in the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled in favour of the passenger and found that Section 10-29 of the Norwegian Aviation Act only applies to claims based directly on the liability rules in chapter 10 of the Act and not on liability which is incorporated into said chapter by reference (such as standard compensations pursuant to EU261).
Therefore, the general three-year time limit was found applicable and the statutory limitation period had not expired, despite the claim being raised almost three years after the flight was
scheduled.
The minority concluded that the two-year limitation period in the Norwegian Aviation Act applies instead of the general three-year rule even for claims under EU regulation 261/2004. Although we are more in agreement with the reasoning and result of the two-judge minority, in subsequent cases, the majority decision will be applied by lower courts and under normal circumstances, also by the Supreme Court.
SWEDEN
Legal topic:
The decision of Svea Court of Appeal in case no. FT 6416-23.
Court:
Supreme Court in Norway
Case number:
FT 6416-23
Party names:
Confidential
In this case, a passenger’s early morning flight was delayed for three hours and 44 minutes.
The delay was caused by the aircraft colliding with a bird during a flight the previous evening.
The flight involved in the collision landed at 21:15 local time and the airline claimed that no technicians were available to check the aircraft upon landing. Consequently, the airline had
flown in its technicians from another airport, who arrived at 07:20 local time. Because of this and the time it took for the technicians to inspect the airplane, the passenger’s flight was delayed. However, since the airline did not provide any evidence of why no other technicians could be utilized at an earlier point in time, or that the technicians would arrive at the earliest time possible, the court did not find that the airline had exhausted all reasonable measures to prevent the delay. The passenger was therefore awarded the claimed amount. The case highlights the heavy and extensive burden of proof that Swedish courts place on airlines in regard to possible reasonable measures to prevent cancellations and delays, as well as the need to submit evidence instead of making statements about circumstances without providing any supporting proof.
