Posts

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.

Martina Flitsch

Im Fokus: Martina Flitsch

/in /by

Was war deine größte Motivation Anwältin zu werden?

Ehrlich gesagt war es nie mein Ziel Anwältin zu werden, es hat sich vielmehr zufällig so ergeben. Im Nachhinein bin ich dafür sehr dankbar, weil ich mir keinen spannenderen und abwechslungsreicheren Beruf vorstellen kann – jeder Tag ist anders und voller neuer Herausforderungen.

 

Was war bisher die größte berufliche Herausforderung?

Es ist sehr schwierig einen Einzelfall hervorzuheben, aber eine Transaktion ist mir besonders in Erinnerung geblieben, bei der ich eine Mandantin beim Verkauf ihres Anteils an einer ausländischen Fluglinie vertreten habe. Wir haben über Monate verhandelt und auf der Gegenseite waren verschiedene Anwälte und Berater am Verhandlungstisch – meine Mandantin wurde hingegen nur von mir alleine vertreten. Nach unzähligen Verhandlungsrunden und mehreren Verhandlungsabbrüchen haben wir dann schlussendlich zu nächtlicher Stunde doch gesigned. Als ich am nächsten Tag die Glückwünsche von diversen Entscheidungsträgern aus dem Konzern meiner Mandantin erhalten habe, mit denen ich vorher nie Kontakt hatte, war ich doch ein bisschen Stolz, dass mir das gelungen ist.

 

Was war die beste Entscheidung in deiner beruflichen Laufbahn?

Die beste Entscheidung war sicherlich, mich auf Aviation und Tourism zu spezialisieren. Die Luftfahrt ist sehr komplex und man muss auch als Anwalt über ein entsprechendes Fachwissen verfügen. Ich finde die Luftfahrt wahnsinnig spannend und arbeite auch sehr gern international.  Ich bin nun seit 1995 in der Luftfahrt tätig und muss sagen, dass das Sprichwort, wer einmal Kerosin geschnuppert hat, von der Luftfahrt nicht mehr los kommt, auf mich voll zutrifft. Und dabei habe ich gar keinen Pilotenschein.

 

Auf was möchtest du in deinem Leben nicht mehr verzichten?

Auf die Freiheit in der täglichen Arbeit – abgesehen davon, dass man sich natürlich nach Mandanten und Terminen richten muss, ist es bei uns „Weisenheimern“ eine Selbstverständlichkeit, dass jeder für sich entscheidet, wann, wo und wie viel er arbeitet. Auch in Zeiten vor Corona war es bei uns üblich, dass jeder dort arbeitet, wo er es möchte. So richtig ausgenutzt hat das nur mein Kollege Robert, der die meiste Zeit im schönen Tessin verbringt und uns in Video-Besprechungen vor Neid erblassen lässt, wenn er uns den strahlend blauen Himmel und den glitzernden See im Hintergrund zeigt.

 

Welches Buch würdest du auf eine einsame Insel mitnehmen?

Wenn ich so nachdenke, würde ich keine Lieblingsbücher mitnehmen, oder Bücher die ich schnell ausgelesen habe. Wenn ich wirklich auf einer einsamen Insel wäre, würde ich sehr gerne alle Bände des Herders Conversations-Lexikons aus dem Jahr 1906 mitnehmen. Die acht Bände stammen von meinen Ur-Urgroßeltern und stehen im Regal neben meinem Schreibtisch. Von Zeit zu Zeit blättere ich in diesen Büchern herum und denke mir, wie schön es wäre, mehr Zeit für solche Dinge zu haben.

 

Martina Flitsch