Posts

Denied Boardings

Recent court practice on denied boardings

/in /by

On 26 October 2023, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a new ruling on the interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation 261/2004 in connection with denied boardings (case C-238/22).

In this ruling, the ECJ determined that an air carrier that informs a passenger in advance that, against the passenger´s will, they will be denied boarding for a flight with a confirmed reservation, must compensate that passenger, even if the passenger does not present themselves for boarding.

In the case at hand, the air carrier denied transporting the passenger on the inbound flight because they had not taken the outbound flight, a common practice based on so-called “No-Show Clauses”.[1] The ECJ interpreted this application of a No-Show-Clause as a denied boarding, disregarding the interpretative guidelines on Regulation 261/2004 published by the EU Commission on 10 June 2016.

Furthermore, the ECJ ruled that Article 5(1)(c)(i) of Regulation 261/2004 does not apply to cases in which passengers are denied boarding. Therefore, the air carrier must provide compensation payments (Article 7) to passengers, even if they informed the passengers at least two weeks in advance that they will refuse to carry them.

On 11 July 2023, the Austrian Regional Court Korneuburg faced a case (22 R 120/23m) with the following circumstances:

An air carrier was confronted with a shortage of security staff at its homebase (LHR) in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in difficulties in handling a sudden increase in passenger numbers during the travel boom following the end of COVID-related travel restrictions. As a response, the air carrier decided to “cancel” several flights due to the challenges in performing the required security checks on the passengers.

The “canceled” flights were, in fact, performed by the air carrier, using the planned time slots, flight numbers and destinations, but with cargo only – without passengers on board.

The Regional Court Korneuburg, serving as the court of appeal, determined that such cases do not constitute a cancellation within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation 261/2004 but rather constitute denied boardings within the meaning of Article 4.

Additionally, the court emphasized that, in cases of denied boardings, it is irrelevant if the reasons for such denied boardings could constitute extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5. According to the applicable Article 4, air carriers are always obligated to immediately compensate passengers in accordance with Article 7 if they are denied boarding against their will.

According to Article 2(j) “denied boarding” means a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation. The court concluded (citing ECJ case C‑321/11, 32) that a reason for a denied boarding must be attributable to the passenger who is being denied boarding.

Since the reason for the air carrier´s decision not to transport passengers on the flight in question was not in any way attributable to the passenger, there were no reasonable grounds within the meaning of Article 2(j) for the denied boarding. Consequently, the Regional Court Korneuburg ruled in the passenger´s favor and ordered the air carrier to pay compensation to the passenger.

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

 

KFZ Wirtschaft

Recht praktisch: Winterreifen sind Pflicht

/in /by

Die Tage werden kürzer, die ersten Blätter verfärben sich, und der 1. November rückt immer näher -Zeit, die neue Winterreifensaison einzuläuten! Im Fokus der kühleren Jahreszeit steht die Sicherheit auf Österreichs Straßen. Doch was ist zu beachten, wenn wir unsere Winterreifen aus der Sommerpause holen?

Die im Kraftfahrzeuggesetz festgelegte Winterreifenpflicht gilt von 1. November bis 15. April. Mopedautos, Pkw und Lkw unter 3,5 Tonnen sind verpflichtet, bei Schnee, Matsch oder Eis mit entsprechenden Winterreifen ausgestattet zu sein. Darüber hinaus sind bei ununterbrochener Schnee-und Eisfahrbahn Schneeketten an mindestens zwei Antriebsrädern anzubringen. Der Gesetzgeber sieht hier keine allgemeine Pflicht vor, entscheidend sind die Fahrbahnverhältnisse. Anders bei Omnibussen und Lkw über 3,5 Tonnen, diese müssen während des gesamten Zeitraums, unabhängig von der Wetterlage, Winterreifen an zumindest einer Antriebsachse montiert haben. Zusätzlich ist mindestens ein Paar Schneeketten mitzuführen. Ausgenommen von der Pflicht sind Mopeds, Mofas, Motorräder und Anhänger.

Auch an die Winterreifen selbst werden bestimmte Anforderungen gestellt. Für Pkw und Lkw unter 3,5 Tonnen ist eine Mindestprofiltiefe von 4 Millimetern bei Radialreifen und 5 Millimetern bei Diagonalreifen vorgesehen. Hingegen sind für Lkw über 3,5 Tonnen 5 Millimeter bei Radialreifen und 6 Millimeter bei Diagonalreifen festgelegt. Des Weiteren müssen Winterreifen mit speziellen Symbolen gekennzeichnet sein. Dies kann entweder ein Matsch und Schnee-Symbol, kurz M+S, oder eine Schneeflocke sein. Ganzjahresreifen sind daher nur wintertauglich, wenn sie über ein derartiges Symbol verfügen.

Wird ein Fahrzeug im Rahmen einer Verkehrskontrolle bei winterlichen Straßenbedingungen ohne die erforderliche Ausrüstung angetroffen, kann dies zu empfindlichen Geldstrafen von bis zu 5000 Euro, oder im Falle einer Gefährdung der Verkehrssicherheit auch zur Untersagung der Weiterfahrt führen.

Zur Ausgabe der KFZWirtschaft geht es hier.

Bild zu einem Beitrag über Crowdfunding-Kampagne für KMU

Crowdfunding-Kampagne für KMU: ein Blick auf relevante Erfolgsfaktoren

/in /by

In der Welt des Investierens hat sich Crowdinvesting zu einer immer beliebteren und zugänglicheren Möglichkeit entwickelt, Kapital für kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen (KMU) zu beschaffen. Doch die rechtlichen Aspekte solcher Kapitalbeschaffungsmaßnahmen sind komplex und erfordern Fachwissen sowie eine gründliche Vorbereitung. Im September 2023 startete die FMTG Falkensteiner Michael Tourism Group AG ihre elfte Crowdfunding-Kampagne für den gesamten DACH-Raum, Weisenheimer Legal übernahm unter der Leitung von Partner Robert Leuthner die rechtliche Betreuung.

Um ihr Wachstum weiter voranzutreiben, entschied sich die FMTG Falkensteiner Michael Tourism Group AG einmal mehr für den Start einer Crowdinvesting-Kampagne in Österreich, Deutschland und der Schweiz über die Crowdinvesting-Plattform CONDA. Als erfahrener Experte für Crowdinvesting-Kampagnen unterstützte Robert Leuthner die komplexen Transaktionen und beriet bei folgenden Aspekten:

  1. Erstellung des KMG-Prospekts: Die Erstellung eines Prospekts nach den Vorschriften des Kapitalmarktgesetzes (KMG) ist von entscheidender Bedeutung, um das Angebot öffentlich platzieren zu können und potenzielle Investoren umfassend über das Projekt zu informieren. Robert Leuthner und sein Team haben FMTG Falkensteiner Michael Tourism Group AG bei der Prospekterstellung unterstützt und dabei eng mit dem Prospektkontrollor Grant Thornton unter der Leitung von Mag. Michael Szücs zusammengearbeitet.
  2. Rechtliche Betreuung bei den Darlehensverträgen: Bei Crowdinvesting-Kampagnen wie jener der FMTG schließen Investoren Nachrang-Darlehensverträge mit dem Unternehmen ab. Die rechtliche Gestaltung dieser Verträge erfordert ein tiefes Verständnis für die spezifischen Anforderungen und Risiken. Weisenheimer Legal sorgte dafür, dass die Interessen sowohl des Unternehmens als auch der Investoren angemessen geschützt sind.
  3. Regulatorische Fragen bezogen auf Crowdinvesting: Das Angebot der FMTG Falkensteiner Michael Tourism Group AG wird nicht nur in Österreich, sondern auch gleichzeitig in Deutschland und der Schweiz platziert. Dies stellte eine enorme Herausforderung dar, da die regulatorischen Anforderungen in diesen Ländern unterschiedlich sind. Weisenheimer Legal koordinierte die rechtlichen Aspekte und sorgte dafür, dass alle Vorschriften in den jeweiligen Ländern eingehalten werden.

Der erfolgreiche Kampagnen-Start der FMTG Falkensteiner Michael Tourism Group AG ist ein Beispiel dafür, wie Crowdinvesting KMU bei ihrem Wachstum unterstützen kann. Die rechtliche Beratung spielt dabei eine wichtige Rolle, auch in Hinblick darauf, dass jedes Land seine eigenen regulatorischen Anforderungen stellt.

Kundenseitig zeichnet Anne Aubrunner, Leiterin der Falkensteiner Investment-Plattform, verantwortlich. Ihr Fazit zum Anlaufen der Kampagne: „Unsere Crowdinvesting-Aktivitäten mit der Unterstützung von Weisenheimer Legal sind ein wesentlicher Baustein bei der Finanzierung und Umsetzung unserer Hospitality-Projekte. Die zeitgleiche Platzierung in mehreren Ländern ist zweifellos eine anspruchsvolle Aufgabe. Die Expertise von Robert Leuthner und seinem Team hat uns dabei geholfen, den nächsten Schritt unserer Wachstumsstrategie zu verwirklichen. Wir sind stolz auf den erfolgreichen Start des Projekts und danken Weisenheimer Legal für ihren wertvollen Beitrag!“

Aircraft Registration Q&A

Aircraft Registration in Austria: Q&A

/in /by

The Austrian Aircraft Registry has enjoyed popularity with both aircraft operators and aircraft owners for quite some time now. In total, more than 1,800 aircraft and helicopters are already registered in Austria. Judging by the number of inquiries on aircraft registration in Austria we are currently receiving at Weisenheimer Legal, the number of registrations is very likely to increase in the coming months.

In order to assist with your considerations and evaluations, we have briefly summarized the most frequently asked questions regarding aircraft registration in Austria in this Q&A:

  • Who is responsible for the registration of an aircraft in Austria? The aircraft owner or the aircraft operator*?

In principle, only the operator (as holder of the aircraft) can procure the registration. This requires – where the operator is not also the legal owner – the consent of the owner. The consent is given by transferring the holdership of the aircraft to the operator. In practice, a form provided by Austro Control must be used for this purpose.

  • What are the nationality requirements for the operator and the owner?

In short (simplified): The operator must be established under the laws of a member state of the EU and have its registered office in a member state of the EU. If the operator does not have an address for service of process in Austria, they must appoint an Austrian agent for this purpose. We at Weisenheimer Legal have long experience acting as process agent for our international clients and can therefore offer you competent and reliable handling of your registration process in Austria.

The aircraft owner need not meet any particular nationality requirements, provided that they transfer the holdership of the aircraft to an operator (holder) who meets the previously described requirements.

  • In what form must the documents be presented for registration?

Normally, copies of documents that can be sent to Austro Control by e-mail are sufficient. In some cases, certified translations of original documents are required. Documents in English are mostly accepted.

  • Can pledges on aircraft be registered in Austria?

No, this is not possible. This being said, we will be happy to advise you on the best practice of creating pledges on aircraft.

  • Do contracts between the operator and the owner need to be disclosed?

No. The agreement between the operator and the owner need not be disclosed; it is sufficient to submit a signed form confirming the transfer of holdership, as provided by Austro Control.

It is not necessary to enter into a lease agreement or a holdership agreement. However, in some cases it is recommended to conclude a holdership agreement in order to facilitate the process.

  • Can the owner deregister the aircraft without the operator’s consent?

No. Only the operator can deregister the aircraft. Therefore, it is also recommended that the operator (acting as holder) issues a Power of Attorney for Deregistration in favor of the owner.

  • What proof does the owner have that he is known to Austro Control as the owner of the aircraft?

Only the operator is named on the Certificate of Registration. Unfortunately, the official translation of the “operator” (holder) on the Certificate of Registration as “Name of Owner” is somewhat misleading. At the request of the operator, Austro Control issues a confirmation to the owner stating that the owner of the aircraft is known to it as the legal owner and that the owner named on the Certificate of Registration is not to be regarded as the legal owner.

 

Click here for the pdf version of our Q&A on Aircraft Registration in Austria.

 

*In connection with aircraft registrations, the term “holder” and not “operator” is used in Austria. In this Q&A, the term “operator” is used for ease of reading, but it is to be understood in the sense of “aircraft holder” and not in the sense of Regulation (EU) 965/2012. In order to be able to act as “holder” of an aircraft, neither an operating license nor an AOC is required.

First aid as accident under the Montreal Convention

First aid as accident under the Montreal Convention

/in /by

In its ruling C-510/21 on 6 July 2023, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that inadequate first aid on board an aircraft following an accident under the Montreal Convention must be regarded as forming part of that accident.

Facts of the case

The case, once again brought before the ECJ by an Austrian court (this time: the Austrian Supreme Court), involved Austrian Airlines.

On 18 December 2016, the claimant was travelling from Tel Aviv to Vienna on a flight operated by Austrian Airlines. During this flight, hot coffee was spilled on the claimant, resulting in injuries. Subsequently, first aid was administered to the claimant on board the aircraft.

In 2019, after the expiration of the time limit specified in Article 35 of the applicable Montreal Convention, the claimant filed a lawsuit against Austrian Airlines in Vienna. The claimant argued that the inadequate first aid should not be considered an accident under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, and therefore, his claims for damages should be governed solely by Austrian national law. Consequently, the three-year time limit stipulated by Austrian national law would apply, and his claims would not be time-barred.

Questions raised by the Austrian Supreme Court

(1) Is first aid which is administered on board an aircraft following an accident within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the [Montreal Convention] and which leads to further bodily injury to the passenger which can be distinguished from the actual consequences of the accident to be regarded, together with the triggering event, as a single accident?

(2) If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does Article 29 of [the Montreal Convention] preclude a claim for compensation for damage caused by the administration of first aid where that claim is brought within the limitation period under national law but outside the period for bringing actions which is laid down in Article 35 of [that] convention?

Legal outcome

The ECJ determined that it is not always possible to attribute damage to an isolated event when that damage is the result of a series of interdependent events. Therefore, when intrinsically linked events occur successively, they should be considered as constituting a single accident under the Montreal Convention.

Based on this interpretation, the ECJ concluded that inadequate first aid provided on board an aircraft following an accident under the Montreal Convention must be considered as part of that accident.

Due to this interpretation, it was not necessary for the ECJ to answer the second question. We are still awaiting a ruling in which the ECJ provides a clear opinion on the scope of the Montreal Convention´s exclusivity principle.

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

Agency Fees

Agency fees: Austrian court practice on reimbursements

/in /by

According to Article 8 of Regulation 261/2004, passengers have the right to choose between reimbursement of the full cost of the ticket within 7 days or re-routing to their final destination in cases of denied boardings, cancellations, and significant delays. A question of major practical relevance arises regarding whether the wording “full cost of the ticket” includes the obligation for air carriers to reimburse any agency fees passengers had to pay during the booking process.

In its ruling C-601/17 (Harms/Vueling), the ECJ clarified that the reimbursement should encompass the price of the ticket, including the commission collected by a person acting as intermediary between the air carrier and the passenger (i.e., an agency fee), unless that commission was set without the knowledge of the air carrier.

While this ruling provided important guidance, it also raised a new question: What exactly does “knowledge of the air carrier” mean?

To fully grasp this question, it is crucial to understand how flight tickets are sold. Tickets are primarily sold either directly through the air carrier´s website or by utilizing a travel agency (either physically or online). In order to facilitate ticket sales by travel agencies, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) grants IATA-certified agencies the authority to issue tickets directly for its airline members.

Traditionally, these travel agencies acted as commercial agents for airlines and received service fees from them. However, over the last 20 years, numerous airlines have altered their pricing models to exclude service fee payments to travel agencies and promoted ticket purchases directly through their own websites. Consequently, travel agencies have adapted their business models and now add fees to the ticket prices paid by their customers, the passengers. Nonetheless, the travel agencies retain the right to issue flight tickets directly.

In response to C-601/17, passengers (represented by their lawyers or claim farms) argued that due to the special relationship between air carriers and travel agencies, reimbursements of ticket costs must include agency fees. They contended that air carriers are aware that travel agencies typically charge fees as part of their business model and that this general knowledge is sufficient to establish the air carrier´s obligation to reimburse the agency fees.

While there have been numerous German rulings on this topic, Austrian rulings, especially by the highly relevant Regional Court Korneuburg, have been scarce. Therefore, we are delighted to announce that our Aviation Team recently managed to obtain two favorable rulings from the Regional Court Korneuburg in this matter on behalf of one of our airline clients.

In these rulings (22 R 226/22y and 22 R 37/23f), the Regional Court Korneuburg (upon our appeals against decisions rendered by the District Court Schwechat) stated that the term “knowledge” used by the ECJ refers to the specific knowledge about the agency fee charged by the intermediary. The court emphasized that the different elements of a ticket, such as the price, must be approved by the air carrier, which can only occur with specific knowledge. The potential information rights of air carriers based on IATA agreements or the existence of incentive agreements that do not specify the amount of the agency fee do not alter this conclusion.

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

Repatriation Flights

Repatriation Flights

/in /by

The height of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel bans related thereto forced numerous airlines to cancel their flights and left passengers stranded far away from their homes. In many cases, these passengers were only able to return home by using special flights organised by their states – so-called repatriation flights.

In its ruling regarding case C-49/22 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) answered key questions raised by the Austrian Regional Court Korneuburg in connection with repatriation flights.

In the case at hand, the claimant booked (as part of a package holiday) the flights OS 17, scheduled for 7 March 2020 from VIE to MRU, and OS 18, scheduled for 20 March 2020 from MRU to VIE, both to be operated by Austrian Airlines. While flight OS 17 went ahead as scheduled, flight OS 18 was cancelled due to the measures taken by the Austrian government due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 19 March the claimant was informed about the cancellation and the possibility to return to VIE by using a repatriation flight organised by the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was scheduled for 20 March at the flight time originally reserved for OS 18 and operated by Austrian Airlines under OS 1024. The claimant and his wife registered for this repatriation flight and had to pay an obligatory contribution of EUR 500 per person.

The claimant eventually filed a lawsuit against Austrian Airlines, demanding compensation of the obligatory contribution amounting to EUR 1,000 while referring to Regulation 261/2004. The District Court Schwechat decided in the claimant´s favour, which led to an appeal by Austrian Airlines and a request for a preliminary ruling of the ECJ.

The ECJ decided that a repatriation flight does not constitute a “re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to [the] final destination” within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 261/2004. Therefore, operating air carriers are not obliged to offer repatriation flights to passengers whose flights have been cancelled.

The ECJ further ruled that passengers do not have a right to reimbursement of obligatory contributions to repatriation flights at the expense of the operating air carrier on the basis of Regulation 261/2004.

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

Start-up-Förderungsgesetz

Das Start-up-Förderungsgesetz

/in /by

Statement unseres Partners und Gesellschaftsrechtsexperten Robert Leuthner zum geplanten Start-up-Förderungsgesetz:

Das Start-up-Förderungsgesetz ist derzeit in Begutachtung – und wird bereits als der große Wurf gefeiert. Ist es das?

Man kann der Regierung zugutehalten, dass sie Unternehmertum und Innovation in Österreich fördern möchte, aber dann bitte richtig. Die Start-up-Mitarbeiterbeteiligung schießt aus meiner Sicht den Vogel ab: Nicht nur, dass die Kriterien zu unflexibel sind. Warum sollen gestandene und erfolgreiche KMU von diesen Möglichkeiten ausgenommen sein? Was macht Nicht-Start-ups so viel weniger unterstützungswert?

Ebenso fragwürdig ist die Einführung der neuen Gesellschaftsform FlexKap. Wozu braucht es in Österreich eine weitere Kapitalgesellschaftsform? Wir haben bereits die AG, die SE, die GmbH und die Genossenschaft. Das sollte doch reichen. Warum also nicht das GmbHG durchgreifend reformieren und damit für alle Unternehmen einen modernen, zukunftsorientierten und vor allem einheitlichen Rechtsrahmen schaffen?

Nicht falsch verstehen: Die Reform des österreichischen Gesellschaftsrechts ist längst überfällig. Start-up-Förderung ist unerlässlich. Die konkreten Maßnahmen sehen für mich aber leider weniger nach Reform als vielmehr nach politischem Aktionismus aus…

Kapitalerhöhung

Kapitalerhöhung schnell und unkompliziert

/in /by

Ein Thema, das bei der Durchführung einer Kapitalerhöhung bei einer GmbH oft für lästige Verzögerungen sorgt, ist das Firmenbuch.

Bei einer Kapitalerhöhung müssen verschiedene Unterlagen vorgelegt werden, darunter das Generalversammlungsprotokoll, die Übernahmeerklärung und die Bankbestätigung. Dies führt häufig zu Verzögerungen bei der Eintragung, da Rechtspfleger gerne Haare in der Suppe finden – dann werden beispielsweise zum Nachweis der Zeichnungsbefugnis Firmenbuchauszüge einer Gesellschaft aus Ländern verlangt, die gar kein Firmenbuch kennen.

Eine einfachere und vor allem schnellere Alternative besteht darin, dass alle Gesellschafter pro rata Anteile zum Nennwert oder gratis an den neuen Investor abtreten. Der Investor verpflichtet sich separat zur Leistung eines Gesellschafterzuschusses in der Differenz zwischen dem Abtretungspreis und der Gesamtinvestitionssumme. In diesem Fall hat das Firmenbuch nichts zu prüfen, was den Prozess erheblich beschleunigt (wir sprechen in der Regel von maximal zwei bis drei Tagen). Die Anmeldung muss nicht einmal beglaubigt sein.

Diese alternative Vorgehensweise bietet eine praktische Lösung für Unternehmen, die eine Kapitalerhöhung schnell und einfach durchführen möchten und bei dem alle Gesellschafter an einem Strang ziehen – das spart allen Beteiligten Zeit und Geld.

Unser Partner Robert Leuthner und das Team von Weisenheimer Legal finden gerne die optimale Lösung für Sie und Ihr Unternehmen.

Unexpected absence of a crew member

/in /by

In its ruling in joined cases C-156/22 to C-158/22 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that the unexpected absence of a crew member does not constitute extraordinary circumstances and can, therefore, not release an operating air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation to passengers in case of cancellations or great delays.

The case at hand concerns a flight that should have been operated by TAP from Stuttgart (Germany) to Lisbon (Portugal), on 17 July 2019 with a departure scheduled at 6.05. However, on the morning of this day, at 4.15, the co-pilot that should have operated the flight concerned was found dead in his hotel bed. Shocked by this event, the whole crew declared itself unfit to fly. As there was also no replacement staff available in Stuttgart (outside TAP’s base), the flight was cancelled. The passengers were transported to Lisbon on a replacement flight scheduled at 16.40 on the same day.

The ECJ decided that the unexpected absence – due to illness or death of a crew member whose presence is essential to the operation of a flight – which occurred shortly before the scheduled departure of that flight, does not fall within the concept of extraordinary circumstances.

This is in line with the ECJ´s prior court practice that declared that measures relating to the staff of the operating air carrier fall within the normal exercise of the air carrier´s activities and, therefore, are not suitable for constituting extraordinary circumstances that could relieve an air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation to its passengers.

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