Beiträge

Weisenheimer

The relevance of stopovers in connection with the Regulation 261/2004

/in /von

In February 2022, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered two decisions regarding the relevance of stopovers in connection with jurisdiction (C-20/21) and the scope of the Regulation 261/2004 (C‑451/20).

In case C-20/21, a passenger booked a flight from Warsaw to Male with a stopover in Frankfurt (single booking). The first flight leg (from Warsaw to Frankfurt) was delayed and, therefore, the passenger missed the second flight leg (from Frankfurt to Male). Subsequently, the passenger sued the airline in Frankfurt.

The ECJ ruled that the court in Frankfurt has no jurisdiction, because due to Frankfurt merely being a stopover, it must not be regarded as “place of performance” which would be necessary to establish jurisdiction.

In case C-451/20, a passenger booked a flight from Chişinău (Moldova) to Bangkok with a stopover in Vienna (single booking). The first flight leg (from Chişinău to Vienna) was cancelled less than seven days prior to the scheduled departure and the passenger was rebooked to fly from Chişinău to Bangkok with a stopover in Istanbul. The passenger then sued the airline in Schwechat (competent court for Vienna airport).

The ECJ ruled that the Regulation 261/2004 is not applicable in this case since both the place of departure and the place of arrival are located outside the European Union. The fact that the planned stopover in Vienna is located inside the European Union does not lead to this case falling within the Regulation´s scope.

On a side note: in case C-559/16 the ECJ already clarified that the distance mentioned in Article 7 (1) of the Regulation 261/2004 relates to the distance calculated between the first point of departure and the final destination. Therefore, also in this regard stopovers are not of relevance according to the ECJ.

Weisenheimer

New place of jurisdiction for passenger claims in Austria

/in /von

As of May 1st, 2022, Austrian law provides for a new place of jurisdiction for passenger claims based on Regulation 261/2004. According to the new provision, a passenger may choose to initiate proceedings before the court in whose jurisdiction the respective flight´s place of arrival or place of departure is located.

This new provision is applicable in cases in which Brussels I Regulation (recast) does not apply (i.e., when the air carrier is located outside the EU) and aims to provide for an equal treatment of such air carriers and those located in a member state of the EU. Until now, passengers were in many cases not able to initiate proceedings against an air carrier located outside the EU, unless the Austrian Supreme Court decided that initiating proceedings where the air carrier is located would be an unreasonable burden for the respective passenger.

Weisenheimer

What changes of a scheduled departure time qualify as cancellation?

/in /von

On 21 December 2021 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered two decisions regarding the question whether certain changes of a scheduled departure time qualify as cancellation within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation 261/2004.

In case C-395/20, a flight from Düsseldorf to Antalya that was initially scheduled to depart at 13:20 was postponed to depart at 16:10. The ECJ decided that because the departure time was postponed by less than three hours, the flight must not be regarded as being cancelled.

In case C-263/20, a flight from Palma de Mallorca to Vienna that was initially scheduled to depart at 14:40 was brought forward to depart at 08:25. The ECJ decided that because the departure time was brought forward by more than one hour, the flight must be regarded as being cancelled (leading to the consequences stipulated in Articles 7, 8 and 9 of Regulation 261/2004).

On a side note: in this case the ECJ also stated that it is not sufficient for an airline to merely inform the intermediary through which a flight was booked about the changes of the scheduled departure time two weeks in advance to comply with Article 5 (1) (c) (i) of Regulation 261/2004 and to avoid being obliged to pay a compensation – even if the passenger´s contact details were not disclosed to the airline.

Weisenheimer

Compensation payments must be deducted from immaterial and material damages

/in /von

In one of its rare rulings regarding the Regulation 261/2004, the Austrian Supreme Court decided in the case 4 Ob 177/21i that compensation payments an airline paid to a passenger in accordance with Article 7 of the regulation must be deducted from further claims for immaterial and material damages asserted by the passenger.

While the regulation sets forth certain passenger rights (Art 7: compensation, Art 8: reimbursement or re-routing, Art 9: care), other claims a passenger may assert (e.g. damages for a hotel booking or a rental car that he could not use) must be based on national law.

In the case at hand, the passenger claimed that the compensation payment aims only to reimburse him for the inconveniences linked to a denied boarding/cancellation/long delay and, therefore, must only be deducted from immaterial damages. However, the Austrian Supreme Court clarified that in such cases the compensation payment must also be deducted from material damages like expenses for a hotel booking or a rental car.

Weisenheimer

Payments to the credit card account used for the ticket purchase are not sufficient

/in /von

The regional court Korneuburg decided in the cases 22 R 171/21h, 22 R 196/21k and 22 R 210/21v that while Article 7 (3) of Regulation 261/2004 does not generally prevent payments to be made to credit card accounts used by passengers, it must be assessed in accordance with applicable national law whether such payments relieve an airline from its obligation to pay.

If Austrian law applies, it is not sufficient if an airline pays the amount in dispute (i.e., mainly a ticket refund or a compensation payment) to the credit card account a passenger used to pay for his/her tickets. The regional court argued that only payments made to an account the passenger disclosed vis a vis the airline for refund purposes are regarded sufficient to relieve the airline from its obligation to pay.

These rulings especially have an impact on cases in which it is uncertain whether a passenger already received a payment or when exactly he/she received the payment. To comply with these rulings, it would be advisable to either have passengers specify the account they demand a payment to be made to during the refund application process or to contact the specific passenger before issuing a payment.