Legal fees and no-reply email addresses

Legal fees and no-reply email addresses

/in /by

Many questions of our airline clients concern legal fees demanded by passengers and under what circumstances these fees must be paid. Especially when letters of notice are sent to no-reply email addresses and subsequently lawsuits are filed, there are often uncertainties. The aim of today´s article is to briefly illustrate the Austrian system concerning the reimbursement of legal fees and to answer the question if legal fees must be paid when a letter of notice has merely been sent to a no-reply email address.

Airlines are often confronted by letters of notice sent by a lawyer with which not only a ticket reimbursement or compensation payment is demanded, but also legal fees for the lawyer´s work. Such legal fees must only be paid if the involvement of a lawyer was necessary for the passenger. This is the case if, e.g., the passenger already contacted the airline himself, but the airline refused to pay the demanded amount or did not react to the passenger´s query. Additionally, according to court practice, it can be necessary to involve a lawyer if the airline fails to inform the passenger about his rights granted by the Regulation 261/2004 (in violation of Article 14 of this regulation).

In Austrian court proceedings, the prevailing party is entitled to receive a reimbursement of its legal fees by the opponent (in case of a partial victory: on a pro rata basis). These legal fees are calculated in accordance with the Lawyers Tariffs Act (Rechtsanwaltstarifgesetz), regardless of any possible separate agreement between lawyer and client regarding the remuneration.

However, also these legal fees are only reimbursed if the respective actions (e.g., filing a lawsuit) have been necessary. If the passenger (or his lawyer) did not contact the airline before filing a lawsuit, the airline can refuse to pay his legal fees and even demand reimbursement for its own legal fees if it acknowledges and pays the passenger´s claim at the first moment possible.

The Commercial Court Vienna had to deal with a case in which the passenger did not contact the airline first and his lawyer sent a letter of notice only to a no-reply email address used by the airline. The lawyer ignored the standardized reply email that asked him to use another email address for his query and filed a lawsuit. Subsequently, the airline acknowledged and paid the claim without undue delay, refused to pay the passenger´s legal fees and demanded reimbursement for its own legal fees. The Commercial Court Vienna decided in the airline´s favor (case number: 60 R 42/21p).

Don´t hesitate to contact our Aviation Team to learn more about the system of legal fees passengers may demand to in connection with passenger claims and passenger claims in Austria in general.

The breakdown of an airport´s refueling system constitutes extraordinary circumstances

The breakdown of an airport´s refueling system constitutes extraordinary circumstances

/in /by

On 7 July 2022, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that the breakdown of an airport´s refueling system constitutes extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5 (3) of Regulation 261/2004 (case C-308/21).

In its reasoning, the ECJ once more pointed out the criteria it regards relevant when it comes to extraordinary circumstances: the events that occurred must not be inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and they must be beyond the air carrier´s actual control.

Regarding the first criterion, the ECJ stated that, in principle, refueling operations fall within the scope of the normal exercise of an air carrier´s activity and that, therefore, a technical issue arising during the refueling would not be suitable to constitute extraordinary circumstances. However, a general failure in the refueling system managed by the airport must be treated differently than a technical issue that, by its nature, is only confined to a single aircraft. Therefore, the ECJ came to the conclusion that such general failures of the refueling system are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned.

Regarding the second criterion, the ECJ once again highlighted the importance of the distinction between “internal” and “external” events, whereas only “external” events are regarded to be beyond the air carrier´s actual control. Therefore, if the refueling system at an airport is managed by this airport or a third party, a general breakdown of this system is regarded to be beyond the air carrier´s control.

Since both criteria of extraordinary circumstances are met, the ECJ decided that the general breakdown of an airport´s refueling system constitutes extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the respective air carrier is not obliged to pay compensation to the passengers, provided that all reasonable measures were taken.

Don´t hesitate to contact our Aviation Team to learn more about passenger claims in Austria.

Strikes because of an authority´s decision constitute extraordinary circumstances

Strikes because of an authority´s decision constitute extraordinary circumstances

/in /by

On 30 June 2022, the district court Schwechat ruled in three cases we are handling for a client that strikes constitute extraordinary circumstances if the reason for the strikes is an authority´s decision. The court argues that such strikes that are based on demands that can only be fulfilled by authorities (and not the airline itself) are beyond the airline´s control. In the cases at hand, not the airline´s employees, but the ground handling staff was striking and thereby disturbing the normal operations.

These rulings are in line with the ECJ´s ruling C-28/20, in which the ECJ mentioned: “If, however, such a strike originates from demands which only the public authorities can satisfy and which, accordingly, are beyond the actual control of the air carrier concerned, it is capable of constituting an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ […]”

Therefore, airlines are not obliged to pay compensation (Art 7 of Reg 261/2004) if flights are cancelled or significantly delayed due to such strikes, provided that all reasonable measures in connection therewith are taken.

Don´t hesitate to contact our Aviation Team to learn more about when strikes constitute extraordinary circumstances and passenger claims in Austria.

Stopovers and the Regulation 261/2004

Stopovers and the Regulation 261/2004

/in /by

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.

Don´t hesitate to contact our Aviation Team to learn more about the relevance of stopovers in connection with Regulation 261/2004.

New place of jurisdiction for passenger claims in Austria

New place of jurisdiction for passenger claims in Austria

/in /by

As of May 1st, 2022, Austrian law provides for a new place of jurisdiction for passenger claims in Austria based on Regulation 261/2004.

According to the new § 101a of the Austrian Act on Jurisdiction (Jurisdiktionsnorm), 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.

Don´t hesitate to contact our Aviation Team to learn more about the places of jurisdiction for passenger claims in Austria.

Changes of scheduled departure times as cancellations

Changes of scheduled departure times as cancellations

/in /by

On 21 December 2021 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered two decisions regarding the question if and under which circumstances changes of scheduled departure times qualify as cancellations 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.

Don´t hesitate to contact our Aviation Team to learn more about what changes of scheduled departure times constitute cancellations under Regulation 261/2004 and about passenger claims in Austria in general.

Compensation payments must be deducted

Compensation payments must be deducted

/in /by

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.

Don´t hesitate to contact our Aviation Team to learn more about when compensation payments must be deducted under Austrian law and about passenger claims in Austria in general.

Payments to the credit card accound are not sufficient

Payments to the credit card account are not sufficient

/in /by

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 the credit card account used by a passenger, 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, payments to the credit card account a passenger used to pay for his/her tickets are not sufficient for an airline to fulfill its obligations (i.e., mainly in connection with a ticket refund or a compensation payment). 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.

Don´t hesitate to contact our Aviation Team to learn more about passenger claims in Austria.

No-Show Clauses in Austria

Is there a future for No-Show Clauses in Austria?

/in /by

Over the last years, consumer protection agencies throughout the European Union have made continued efforts to prevent the use of so called No-Show Clauses, which are commonly used by airlines in their general conditions of carriage. In Austria, this led to several court proceedings in which rulings effectively restricting the use of No-Show Clauses were issued. This, in turn, prompted many airlines to adapt their clauses in order to comply with the court practice. This article seeks to give a brief overview of the topic and the future of No-Show Clauses in Austria against the backdrop of the most recent ruling of the Austrian Supreme Court in case 4 Ob 63/21z.

What is a No-Show Clause?

Airlines use complex pricing systems to allocate specific ticket fares to individual passengers. The ticket fare a passenger is charged depends, inter alia, on the specific itinerary he or she chooses. This is because, on the one hand, passengers are willing to pay higher fares for direct flights; on the other hand, fares are generally dependent on the respective place of departure. As a result, the ticket fare for a flight booked e.g. from Warsaw to New York with a stopover in Vienna will probably be offered for a lower fare than a direct flight from Vienna to New York. Another example would be roundtrips (e.g. with the flight legs Vienna – New York – Vienna), which are often offered for a lower price than one-way tickets.

However, airlines experienced some passengers using the pricing system to their advantage by e.g. booking a flight from Warsaw to New York with a stopover in Vienna instead of a (more expensive) direct flight from Vienna to New York despite their residence in Vienna and their intention to only be transported from Vienna to New York. Other passengers book a roundtrip and intentionally “miss” the second flight leg. Some travel agencies even specialize in getting the cheapest ticket fares possible for their customers by circumventing the pricing system in this way.

As a reaction, airlines implemented so called No-Show Clauses in their general conditions of carriage stipulating that passengers will be denied boarding or have to pay an adapted fare when they do not use all flight legs (i.e., in our examples: when the passenger does not board the flight from Warsaw to Vienna or misses his or her second flight leg from New York to Vienna).

How are No-Show Clauses challenged by consumer protection agencies?

Since No-Show Clauses are usually implemented in an airline´s general conditions of carriage, several organizations have the right to challenge them according to Austrian consumer protection provisions. Especially the “Verein für Konsumenteninformation, VKI” and the “Bundesarbeitskammer” are quite active in this regard.

These two organizations are regularly screening general terms and conditions used by several companies including general conditions of carriage used by airlines operating flights to or from Austria for clauses which they deem to be unlawful, especially by arguing that such clauses are surprising and disadvantageous for consumers or grossly disadvantageous. If a clause is deemed to be unlawful, the airline usually receives a letter from the consumer protection body or its lawyer demanding that the airline in question immediately refrains from using the “unlawful” clause, together with a cease and desist declaration secured by a contractual penalty.

One aspect that is often criticized by our clients is that normally the consumer protection agencies are neither willing to discuss the lawfulness of the respective clause nor to work together to find a solution that takes into account the positions of both the consumer and the airline. They rather only give airlines the options to either sign the cease and desist declaration within (usually) 14 days or be confronted with court proceedings.

How are No-Show Clauses viewed by Austrian courts?

Austrian courts regard No-Show Clauses to be void especially when they are deemed to be either surprising and disadvantageous for the consumer or grossly disadvantageous. While the “surprising” character of a No-Show Clause may be avoided by implementing certain measures in the booking process to ensure that passengers are duly informed, it is rather challenging for airlines to formulate No-Show Clauses that are not regarded as grossly disadvantageous but are still effective.

The Austrian Supreme Court first had to deal with No-Show Clauses in 2012 (4 Ob 164/12i, a case in which our partner, Martina Flitsch, was directly involved). While the Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged the airline´s legitimate interest to implement and protect its pricing system, it regarded the No-Show Clause the airline used to be too extensive and, therefore, grossly disadvantageous. This view was adopted and further developed in several other Supreme Court rulings with the latest one being 4 Ob 63/21z from 2021.

As a reaction, several airlines operating flights to and from Austria adapted their conditions of carriage in order to comply with the criteria set forth by Austrian court practice. Therefore, nowadays the consequence of not using all flight legs is usually a recalculation of the ticket fare or a lump sum that must be paid. Additionally, many No-Show Clauses now explicitly state that they do not apply in cases of force majeure, illness or, in general, when the reasons for the passenger not using all flight legs are not attributable to him or her.

What does the future hold for No-Show Clauses in Austria?

The latest decision of the Austrian Supreme Court (4 Ob 63/21z) dealt with a No-Show Clause that has obviously been designed to comply with the Austrian court practice. However, despite careful drafting, the clause was finally regarded as grossly disadvantageous to the consumer and, therefore, void. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity to differentiate between passengers that are deliberately circumventing the pricing system and passengers that are not using all flight legs for any other reason.

In practice, it is foreseeable that it will be particularly challenging for airlines to successfully determine on a case by case basis if a passenger is circumventing the pricing system, especially when this decision must be made very quickly before boarding is denied. Especially with regard to the Regulation (EU) 261/2004 and the organizations specialized in representing passengers in cases of denied boarding, the risk of lawsuits and court proceedings, in which airlines have to prove that the denied boarding has been justified, is rather high.

Despite the many challenges airlines face when it comes to No-Show Clauses in Austria, it is, in our opinion, rather unlikely that airlines will refrain from using them. As explained, No-Show Clauses are an essential tool to ensure the functioning of an airline´s pricing system, which is a vital part of an airline´s business model.

Therefore, airlines must remain vigilant and keep an eye on ongoing developments such as new court decisions in order to avoid being confronted by consumer protection agencies or finding themselves in court proceedings which, while causing substantial workload and legal fees, have limited chances of success. In such cases, it is certainly not a mistake  to engage a reliable legal advisor who is experienced in dealing with consumer protection agencies and handling passenger claims.