Interview of the Month: Dr. Andreas Vogeler
- OSS Team
- Jun 19
- 4 min read
As part of our new section "Inside the Network," this month we had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Andreas Vogeler from Vogeler Rechtsanwälte, Germany.
OSS: Thank you, Andreas, for taking the time to share your insights with us. We're confident that your contribution will be a highly valued feature in this edition of our Newsletter. By way of introduction, is there a recent legal development or case in your country that you would like to share with your aviation lawyer colleagues across Europe?
Dr. Andreas Vogeler: A recent decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dated March 27, 2025 – Case No. I ZR 64/24 (Ryanairv. Flightright) – has clarified that a competitive relationship exists between flight compensation portals and airlines. This issue had long been disputed in Germany and was previously assessed inconsistently by the higher courts.
In this ruling, the BGH determined that Flightright and Ryanair are to be considered competitors under competition law, as both offer comparable services aimed at enforcing passenger rights. As a result, critical statements made by Flightright in customer communications –particularly those portraying Ryanair’s customer service as obstructive – may constitute unfair commercial practices under the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG).
Contrary to the lower courts, which had dismissed Ryanair’s claim on the grounds that the differing business models precluded a competitive relationship, the BGH reached a different conclusion. The court emphasized that Ryanair’s online form for asserting passenger rights constitutes an independent commercial service that goes beyond its regulatory obligations under EU law and serves as a functional alternative to Flightright’s offering.
This decision now enables airlines to take legal action against unlawful practices by passenger rights portals based on the existence of a competitive relationship. Such practices may include, as in the present case, unlawful statements about an airline’s customer service, but could also extend to misleading advertising, outdated cancellation policies, price-fixing, or similar conduct. As a result, airlines – which have traditionally found themselves in a defensive position vis-à-vis consumer protection organizations – may now adopt a more offensive legalstance.
OSS: In your experience, what’s the biggest challenge when handling passenger rights cases in your jurisdiction?
Dr. Andreas Vogeler: The greatest current challenge lies in the poor quality of judicial work in court proceedings.
Due to the rules governing international and local jurisdiction of German courts, air passenger disputes are concentrated in a few specific court locations. These courts are often situated outside major cities, as airports are typically located in more remote areas. As a result, smaller courts are overwhelmed with a high volume of cases that exceed their capacity. This issue is further exacerbated by a shortage of legal professionals and judicial clerks—an issue even more pronounced in rural areas than in urban centers.
In Germany, local courts (Amtsgerichte) traditionally handle all cases with a disputed value of up to €5,000. Consequently, judges at these courts are typically responsible for a wide variety of legal matters. The concentration of similar cases in just a few small courts diminishes the attractiveness of these positions for legal professionals.
There is a growing perception that the focus is no longer on ensuring due process and adherence to fundamental principles of civil procedure—particularly the right to be heard—but rather on concluding proceedings as quickly as possible. This often means avoiding the taking ofevidence or obtaining official information from relevant authorities. Instead, courts set the bar for the airline’s submissions so high that they are nearly impossible to meet. Only if the airline’s arguments are deemed sufficiently substantiated is the court obliged to consider the evidence offered.
Challenging this practice in a substantive and appropriate manner is the greatest hurdle we face.
As attorneys in Germany, we are not only representatives of our clients but also officers of the court. It is therefore our duty to draw attention to these deficiencies in the judicial process and to actively oppose them. This is a responsibility we have firmly committed ourselves to.
OSS: Besides the daily use of the claim management platform, what other tech tools do you personally use in your day-to-daywork?
Dr. Andreas Vogeler: Our law firm has been fully digitalized since 2017. We utilize highly efficient legal practice management software to handle and organize all digital court correspondence. From the outset, all relevant data is extracted from the statements of claim, stored, and shared with our claim management platform. We create case files for the airline, extract the necessary data, and provide it in a structured format. Throughout the lifecycle of each case, we continuously rely on this extracted data—for example, to automate payments or to manage client trust accounts with minimal manual input.
To ensure consistent quality in case handling, we have established firm-wide content standards that align with the requirements of German courts regarding party submissions. We also offer tailored training sessions to our clients to support them in meeting these standards.
The use of AI is a key focus of our current research efforts. Established tools such as Microsoft Copilot—used in conjunction with our anonymization software—are an integral part of our daily operations.
OSS: Is there something you’ve seen working well in other jurisdictions—whether in legislation, procedure, or technology—that you wish could be adopted in your own country?
Dr. Andreas Vogeler: Germany’s electronic legal communication system between lawyers and courts should take inspiration from Austria’s model.
In Austria, it is common practice for court appointments and deadlines to be transmitted as structured data alongside the delivery of legal documents. This allows Austrian legal software to automatically recognize and record such information. The integration of procedural data into the electronic filing process significantly enhancers efficiency.
We thank Dr. Andreas Vogeler for sharing valuable insights and perspectives and for contributing to the continued dialogue within our legal network.
