Austrian Supreme Court Declares Numerous Fee Clauses in GCC Unlawful
In its judgment of 19 May 2026 (4 Ob 170/25s), the Austrian Supreme Court handed down a far-reaching decision on ancillary fees contained in airlines’ General Conditions of Carriage. The proceedings concerned 15 clauses used by Ryanair. The Supreme Court confirmed that 14 of these clauses were unlawful.
The decision illustrates the standards applied by Austrian courts when assessing the transparency and objective justification of fee provisions in conditions of carriage.
The Fee Clauses Challenged
- Booking and infant fees: The provisions were non-transparent due to unclear terminology and references that were difficult to follow. In particular, the Supreme Court held that the refund of the booking fee could not be regulated in a manner that turned the determination of passengers’ rights into a “mental exercise” or could discourage them from enforcing mandatory rights.
- Administrative fee for the refund of taxes: The Supreme Court also considered the clause imposing an administrative fee for the refund of unused taxes and charges to be non-transparent. Passengers could not ascertain the precise scope of their refund entitlement with sufficient clarity from the contractual provisions.
- Airport check-in and boarding pass: Of particular practical relevance are the clauses providing for a fee of EUR 55 for airport check-in and EUR 15 for the issuance of a boarding pass. Under the interpretation most adverse to consumers, the airport check-in fee would have applied even where online check-in was unavailable for a reason attributable to the airline, such as a server outage. The Supreme Court considered this to constitute an unlawful transfer of the airline’s business risk to passengers. It also found no objective justification for charging a separate fee for issuing a boarding pass.
- Seat reservations when travelling with children: The relevant provisions used different age limits and did not make sufficiently clear which seats had to be reserved and at what price. The Supreme Court therefore found the interaction between the clauses and the fee table to be non-transparent.
- Cabin and checked baggage: The provisions specified different dimensions for the small item of cabin baggage permitted free of charge. Passengers were therefore unable to determine the maximum size up to which their baggage would actually be carried without an additional fee. A storage clause concerning baggage not collected in time was also unlawful: it left both the amount of the fee and the relevant period unspecified and, under the interpretation most adverse to consumers, could even have resulted in passengers losing ownership of baggage that had arrived late.
- Flight changes and name changes: The Supreme Court objected to flat-rate flight-change and name-change fees where they were, without objective justification, disconnected from the airline’s actual costs. In relation to flight changes, passengers were also required to pay the difference where the new flight was more expensive, while receiving no refund where the new flight was cheaper.
- Package travel and missed flights: A clause governing the transfer of a package travel contract could subject passengers to unspecified fees and therefore also conflicted with the Austrian Package Travel Act. Another clause, according to its wording, also covered flights missed through no fault of the passenger and thus potentially applied in cases where free re-routing was required under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
What Are the Implications of the Decision?
The Supreme Court did not hold that ancillary fees in air transport are generally unlawful. Rather, the specific wording and structure of each clause are decisive. Fees must be clearly understandable to passengers, must not restrict mandatory statutory rights and require an objective justification, particularly where they relate to ancillary services. Flat-rate fees that significantly exceed the actual costs incurred or transfer risks within the airline’s sphere to passengers are particularly problematic.
Airlines should therefore avoid reviewing fee provisions in isolation. The interaction between their GCC, fee tables, fare conditions and supplementary online information must also be transparent and consistent. Chains of cross-references, inconsistent terminology and insufficiently defined fees may, in themselves, render a clause invalid.
The judgment is available here.
Further information on drafting General Conditions of Carriage is available in our article on GCC in Austria here.
Our experienced Aviation Team is happy to answer your questions about the use of General Conditions of Carriage in Austria, review your GCC to reduce the risk of legal proceedings, and represent you in court.
