EU261 Claims: Newsletter #15
- OSS Team
- Nov 15, 2024
- 8 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:
Obligation to reimburse the State for
translation costs 2 – the opposite decision.
Date:
27.08.2024
Court:
District court of Prague 6
Case number:
17 Co 286/2024
Party names:
Confidential
With reference to our post in the previous newsletter, this case involved the same factual situation – termination of the proceedings (due to settlement) and an imposition on the air carrier to reimburse the State for translation costs (translation of lawsuit and summons into a foreign language). However, the Court of Appeal reacted to our appeal in the opposite way to the previous case, ruling that the obligation to reimburse the State was correct. The court justified this decision by stating that documents are not translated to ensure the right to act in the native language but is a consequence of a directly applicable EU Regulation, No. 2020/1784, according to which the addressee may refuse to accept documents which are not in a language that he/she understands. It is therefore apparent that the case-law of the higher courts in the Czech Republic is inconsistent, and that no conclusion can be drawn as to the clarity of that interpretation.
DENMARK
Legal topic:
The case concerns the interpretation of
Article 3(2)(a) of (EU) Regulation No.
261/2004 regarding the airline’s obligation to compensate passengers in the event of an announced long delay (+ 3 hours) when the passenger had bought a flight ticket but had not boarded.
Date:
25.01.2024
Court:
The European Court (Third Chamber)
Case number:
C-474/22
Party names:
Laudamotion GmBH v. Flightright GmbH
In this case, the passenger had bought a flight ticket but had decided not to board the flight due to an announced delay that would have caused him to miss a business appointment.
The key legal question was whether passengers are required to present themselves for check-in in cases of long flight delays in order to be eligible for compensation, as is required for normal flights under Article 3(2)(a) of the Regulation. The passenger claimed that, since delays of + 3 hours had been treated as a cancellation in previous judgements, passengers should be exempt from this rule.
The Court ruled that, in order to claim compensation for long delays, passengers must present themselves for check-in on time, even if there is a known delay. The passenger is exempt from this rule only if the flight is cancelled. The reason given was that compensation is tied to the actual inconvenience experienced from a delay, and a passenger who does not arrive at the airport has not suffered such inconvenience.
The Court further noted that the passenger can still be considered to have suffered “individual damage”, which could be pursued separately under Article 12 rather than Article 7(1) of the Regulation, which permits “further claims”.
Our comments
Although the outcome is probably unsurprising, the judgment confirms a strict interpretation of Article 3(2)(a) of the Regulation and has now further clarified that even if, in regard to compensation payment, a long delay is treated in the same way as a cancellation, it is different when it comes to the need to prove that the passenger did in fact suffer due to that long delay.
Legal topic:
The case concerns the interpretation of
Article 8(1)(a) of (EU) Regulation No
261/2004, specifically regarding an airline's obligation to refund passengers for a return flight when the outbound flight has been cancelled. The issue was complicated by the fact that the flights were paid for using two different payment methods and were assigned two separate booking references.
Date:
28.06.2024
Court:
The Eastern High Court
Case number:
BS-6575/2024-OLR (U.2024.4316)
Party names:
Ryanair Limited vs Flyhjælp ApS
In this case, the passengers were due to fly with Ryanair from Copenhagen to Porto (CPH to OPO) and back to CPH a few days later. The flight on September 27, 2019, was cancelled due to a cabin crew strike, so the passengers sought compensation and refunds for both the
outbound and return flights. The tickets had been purchased separately on the same day. The passengers had received separate order confirmations with different booking numbers (PNR)
and had paid using two different MasterCards.
The airline met the passengers’ claim for a refund and compensation for their outbound flight tickets, but not for the return flight. The airline argued that, since the two flights were under separate bookings (different booking references and payment methods), the outbound flight and the return flight did not constitute a single journey. As the return flight remained unaffected, the passengers were not entitled to a refund for those tickets.
The passengers on the other hand, argued that they should receive compensation and a refund for the return flight since those tickets had become useless after the outbound flight had been cancelled.
The City Court ruled in favour of the passenger, as the return flight no longer served its purpose due to the cancellation of the outbound flight and therefore required a refund.
This case was appealed and the Eastern High Court came to the opposite conclusion. The Court reasoned their decision by stating that the case concerned two separate journeys and emphasized the different PNR number and payment with two different payment methods.
Based on this, the Court ruled that Ryanair was exempt from paying for the return ticket.
Our comments
It is encouraging to see that the Eastern High Court set things straight. Knowing that the EUCJ in C-436/21 (flightright v American Airlines) attributed a good deal of liability for the airline concerning a single PNR used for the entire flight, even if it was the OTA that had combined the flights, it is a relief to see that two individual PNR numbers necessarily had to lead to the opposite result since there was no connection between the flights.
GERMANY
Legal topic:
Causal link between an extraordinary
circumstance and a cancellation made to secure the airline’s sequential flight
rotation/discretionary power.
Date:
24.09.2024
Court:
BGH (German Supreme Court)
Case number:
X ZR 136/23
Party names:
Confidential
There is a direct connection between extraordinary circumstances and the cancellation of a flight, even when these circumstances do not prevent the flight in question from being operated, but its operation would have a negative impact on subsequent flights. The airline has power of discretion if not all scheduled flights can take place. This causal link remains even when the airline decides on the day of the extraordinary circumstance not to operate certain flights in order to avoid cancellations or significant delays on the following day.
ITALY
Legal topic:
EU261 compensation - Occurrence of an
extraordinary circumstance in respect of a flight not affected by that circumstance - Concept of reasonable measures.
Date:
31.10.2024
Court:
Court of Bergamo
Case number:
5495/2023
Party names:
Confidential
In a recent ruling, the Court of Bergamo confirmed the Justice of the Peace’s original decision, dismissing the appeal of a passenger who was seeking compensation from the carrier due to a delay caused by the cascading effect of a prior disruption.
The judgment places particular emphasis on the concept of “flight sequence,” noting that, although the volcanic eruption that closed Catania Airport did not directly impact the passenger's flight, it delayed the preceding flight, which sequentially affected his connection.
The judge observed, “It is evident that the volcanic eruption did not directly affect the flight in question, departing from Naples, but it did affect the preceding one. However, since these were sequential flights, the delay of the first flight was inevitably carried over to the subsequent flight.”
Finally, the ruling addresses the issue of feasible mitigation efforts, acknowledging that, while the airline could theoretically have mitigated the delay by providing another aircraft in Naples, this would have been an excessively burdensome and economically disproportionate obligation. The judge concluded that such a measure was neither practical nor required of the airline under these circumstances.
This case acts as a significant reference point, highlighting the delicate balance between consumer protection and the reasonable obligations imposed on airlines under EU legislation.
Legal topic:
EU261 compensation - Passenger
Compliance with Airline-Specified Complaint Procedures.
Date:
12.10.2024
Court:
Justice of Peace, Bergamo
Case number:
C‐385/23
Party names:
Confidential
The Justice of the Peace in Bergamo addressed an appeal filed by the airline carrier against a payment order of EU261 compensation to a passenger due to a more than 3-hour delay. The
airline challenged the payment order, asserting that it had promptly offered to pay the EU261 compensation but was unable to complete the payment due to the passenger’s failure to provide banking details. Additionally, the airline argued that the passenger did not personally submit the complaint as required by the general terms and conditions of carriage, opting instead to initiate legal proceedings immediately.
The Judge, considering the passenger’s conduct, observed that “the airline, in compliance with EU regulations, provided an accessible tool through its platform for passengers to submit complaints regarding flight issues. It is therefore evident that the passenger’s decision not to use this procedure served only to burden the matter unnecessarily with legal fees and costs on her part and that of her counsel.” [...] “Consequently, in line with the cited case law, and since the airline has confirmed its willingness to grant the claimant the EU261 compensation, the
opposition must be upheld, resulting in the revocation of the contested payment order.”
The judge upheld the airline's arguments, emphasizing that the passenger’s approach appeared to aim at unnecessarily inflating legal costs, thereby constituting an abuse of process. As a result, the court revoked the payment order against the airline and ordered the passenger to cover the airline’s legal expenses.
POLAND
Legal topic:
Compensation for delayed flight in case of engine damage.
Date:
13.06.2024
Court:
Court of Justice of the European Union
Case number:
C-411/23
On 13 June 2024, the European Court of Justice issued a judgment in a case concerning the possibility of claiming compensation for a delayed flight due to an engine defect and qualifying such an incident as coming within ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under Article 5 of the Regulation, which establishes common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding, flight cancellation or long delays. The plaintiff claimed that the producer of the engine installed on the scheduled airline's plane had informed
the airline of its construction defect five months before the scheduled flight. The court ruled, that the detection of a construction defect in the engine fell within the scope of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the delay of the flight. Information from the producer about a construction defect in the engine, obtained even several months before the flight, is irrelevant.
SWEDEN
Legal topic:
Information according to Article 5.1 (c)(i) of (EU) Regulation No. 261/2004.s.
Date:
21.10.2024
Court:
Svea Court of Appeal
Case number:
FT 13488-23
Party names:
Confidential
The question in this case was whether the airline had proven that the passenger had been informed of a cancelled flight in such a manner that the airline, according to Article 5.1(c)(i) of (EU) Regulation No. 261/2004, was not obliged to pay compensation to the passenger under Article 7. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the requirement for the passenger to be informed implies that the information actually reached the passenger. However, proving that the passenger read the information is not required. The airline cited an email that was allegedly sent to the same email address the passenger used when communicating with his representative in the case. The Court of Appeal assessed that the email indicating that it was sent on a certain date does not prove that the information reached the passenger. Since there was no receipt or other evidence showing that the passenger had received the information, the Court of Appeal decided that the airline had not met its burden of proof and should pay compensation to the passenger.
