Beiträge

Strikes because of an authority´s decision constitute extraordinary circumstances

Streiks aufgrund der Entscheidung einer Behörde stellen außergewöhnliche Umstände dar

/in /von

Am 30. Juni 2022 hat das Bezirksgericht Schwechat in drei von uns betreuten Fällen entschieden, dass Streiks einen außergewöhnlichen Umstand darstellen, wenn der Grund für die Streiks eine behördliche Entscheidung ist. Das Gericht argumentiert, dass solche Streiks, die auf Forderungen beruhen, die nur von Behörden (und nicht von der Fluglinie selbst) erfüllt werden können, außerhalb des Einflussbereichs der Fluglinie liegen. In den vorliegenden Fällen streikten nicht die Mitarbeiter der Fluggesellschaft, sondern das Bodenpersonal und störten damit den normalen Betrieb.

Diese Urteile stehen im Einklang mit dem Urteil des EuGH in der Rechtssache C-28/20, in dem der EuGH feststellte: “ Liegen einem solchen Streik jedoch Forderungen zugrunde, die nur von staatlichen Stellen erfüllt werden können und die daher für das betroffene Luftfahrtunternehmen nicht tatsächlich beherrschbar sind, so kann es sich dabei um einen „außergewöhnlichen Umstand“ […]“.

Daher sind die Luftfahrtunternehmen nicht verpflichtet, Ausgleichszahlungen zu leisten (Art. 7 der Verordnung (EG)261/2004), wenn Flüge aufgrund solcher Streiks annulliert werden oder sich erheblich verspäten, sofern alle angemessenen Maßnahmen in diesem Zusammenhang getroffen werden.

Für Fragen zu Passenger Claims in Österreich steht Ihnen unser erfahrenes Aviation Team gerne zur Verfügung.

Stopovers and the Regulation 261/2004

Zwischenstopps und die Verordnung (EG) 261/2004

/in /von

Im Februar 2022 hat der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) zwei Entscheidungen zur Relevanz von Zwischenlandungen im Zusammenhang mit der Zuständigkeit (C-20/21) und zum Anwendungsbereich der Verordnung (EG) 261/2004 (C-451/20) getroffen.

In der Rechtssache C-20/21 buchte ein Fluggast einen Flug von Warschau nach Male mit einer Zwischenlandung in Frankfurt (Einzelbuchung). Der erste Flugabschnitt (von Warschau nach Frankfurt) war verspätet, so dass der Fluggast den zweiten Flugabschnitt (von Frankfurt nach Male) verpasste. Daraufhin verklagte der Fluggast die Fluggesellschaft in Frankfurt.

Der EuGH entschied, dass das Gericht in Frankfurt unzuständig ist, da Frankfurt aufgrund der bloßen Zwischenlandung nicht als „Erfüllungsort“ anzusehen ist, der zur Begründung der Zuständigkeit erforderlich wäre.

In der Rechtssache C-451/20 buchte ein Fluggast einen Flug von Chişinău (Moldawien) nach Bangkok mit Zwischenstopp in Wien (Einzelbuchung). Der erste Flugabschnitt (von Chişinău nach Wien) wurde weniger als sieben Tage vor dem geplanten Abflug storniert und der Fluggast wurde auf einen Flug von Chişinău nach Bangkok mit Zwischenstopp in Istanbul umgebucht. Der Fluggast verklagte daraufhin die Fluggesellschaft in Schwechat (zuständiges Gericht für den Flughafen Wien).

Der EuGH entschied, dass die Verordnung (EG) 261/2004 in diesem Fall nicht anwendbar ist, da sich sowohl der Abflug- als auch der Ankunftsort außerhalb der Europäischen Union befinden. Die Tatsache, dass die geplante Zwischenlandung in Wien innerhalb der Europäischen Union liegt, führt nicht dazu, dass dieser Fall in den Anwendungsbereich der Verordnung fällt.

Nebenbei bemerkt: In der Rechtssache C-559/16 hat der EuGH bereits klargestellt, dass sich die in Artikel 7 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EG) 261/2004 genannte Entfernung auf die zwischen dem ersten Abflugort und dem endgültigen Bestimmungsort berechnete Entfernung bezieht. Zwischenlandungen sind daher auch in dieser Hinsicht nach Ansicht des EuGH nicht von Bedeutung.

Für Fragen zu Passenger Claims in Österreich steht Ihnen unser erfahrenes Aviation Team gerne zur Verfügung.

New place of jurisdiction for passenger claims in Austria

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 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 /von

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 /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.

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 /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 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 /von

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.

Passenger claims Austria

What we do: Passenger Claims

/in /von

For several years now, we have been assisting our clients in handling claims related to Regulation (EC) 261/2004, better known as “Passenger Claims”. With our many long-established connections to the aviation sector, we specialize in providing first-class support to our airline partners.

Which cases are we mostly handling?

Normally, passenger claims are mainly for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004. However, in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic and the resulting massive increase of flight cancellations, the number of ticket refunds cases increased substantially. This being said, we represent airlines in connection with other claims, too, such as passenger claims for damages under the Montreal regime and claims arising from the provisions of Austrian law.

What is challenging about passenger claims?

Although the claimed amounts are usually rather low, the complexity of the cases and the effort required of airlines defending them is often quite substantial. While it is often difficult to explain the very specific procedures and terms (e.g. Oplogs) to the courts, it is necessary to do so, in order to convince judges that the airline took all reasonable measures to avoid cancellation or delay. Recently, we’re observing a trend among Austrian judges – undoubtedly encouraged by the rather strict preliminary rulings of the ECJ – to demand increasingly detailed explanations of the extraordinary circumstances and, above all, of the reasonable measures taken by the airline in each case.

As legal representatives of airlines, our task is to identify missing information and to try to obtain it not only from our clients, but also through our own active research of the METAR and flight data, for example. In addition to that, we of course continuously monitor the newest developments of the case law in the area of Passenger Claims and constantly improve our argumentation.

How do we cooperate with our clients?

Bearing in mind the special challenges posed by Passenger Claims, we usually offer a customized fee agreement for each client. Such agreements may cover all Passenger Claims (for a monthly lump sum) or be limited to handling individual cases (for a lump sum per case). Lastly, some clients choose to request our advice on individual issues on the basis of an hourly rate.

Especially at the beginning of the cooperation with a new client, we make sure to determine which claim handling procedure would be most suitable and efficient for the client and we are also happy to organize workshops for our clients’ claim handling team. This is because a well-trained team and optimized processes are the basis of successful and efficient claim handling.

Based on our cooperation in the area of Passenger Claims, our clients also regularly seek our assistance in other areas as well, including baggage and cargo claims, aircraft damage, matters of labor law as well as residence and work permits. We offer customized fee agreements also with regard to these issues.

What are the chances of succeeding from the airlines‘ point of view?

As an airline, you are always fighting an „uphill battle“ when it comes to Passenger Claims. For this reason, we recommend fighting only in those cases where it is really worth your while – not least in order to create as many positive precedents as possible and to avoid creating negative precedents in Austria.

If – based on the available evidence – a case must be classified as “weak”, reacting too slowly or incorrectly will only cause unnecessary costs, which often exceed the claimed compensation itself. With an experienced and agile legal team at your side, such costs can easily be avoided.

How do we efficiently handle “mass claims”?

Our experience shows that a combination of speed, flexibility and know-how is essential, especially when it comes to Passenger Claims. It is often necessary to decide very quickly how to proceed in a large number of cases. Quickly handling these cases is especially crucial in order to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings and the costs associated with them.

In order to be able to handle the cases in a high-quality and yet efficient manner, you need a specialized and well-coordinated team. At Weisenheimer, we rely on a young and very committed team with established and well-proven procedures, who make sure to keep constant and close contact with our clients‘ claim handling teams. Lawyers and paralegals work closely together and use automated processes in order to handle cases as efficiently as possible, not unlike many claim agencies such as Flightright and Fairplane. Of course, with the difference that the representation of airlines is associated with significantly more effort compared to the representation of passengers.

Our Passenger Claims team is supervised and supported by Weisenheimer partner Martina Flitsch, who has been following the development of Passenger Claims for more than 25 years, first as in-house counsel and later as head of the legal department of an airline and subsequently as an attorney. Based on her long experience, Martina is very familiar with the airlines´ needs and thus can ensure that the cooperation between our team and the airline meets the highest standards.

 

The Aviation Team of Weisenheimer Legal

aviation, Weisenheimer legal, team, passenger claims