EN
Aviation

Seminar on the New Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation 261/2004

calendar 26 August 2016
watch 9:00-11:00

Save the date! On 26 August 2016, IUNO hosts a seminar in Danish on the European Commission's new guidelines for the interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 regarding common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights. Even though it is only a set of guidelines it can still be of great significance when interpreting the 261-regulation. As a Danish law professor once said: “It won’t be binding, but it might be persuasive”.

On 26 August 2016, IUNO invites airlines and other companies within the aviation business to a seminar focusing on the new guidelines for interpretation of Regulation 261/2004. During the seminar, we will go over the guidelines and also touch upon some of the topics we face in current cases.

The seminar takes place on 26 August 2016 from 9:00 am to 11:00 am.
Tea, coffee, and a light breakfast will be served from 8:30 am.

The address is
IUNO
Njalsgade 19C, 3.
2300 Copenhagen S

The seminar is free of charge and will be held in Danish.

Background

In 2004, the European Parliament and the Council established common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The purpose of this regulation was to ensure the same high level of protection for passengers throughout the European Union. However, due to grey zones and gaps in the current text of the regulation the provisions included in the 261-regulation have been interpreted and enforced differently in each member state. Therefore - in order to set the record somewhat straight - the Commission has recently issued a Commission Notice containing guidelines for interpretation of the regulation.

The Interpretative guidelines cannot be viewed as a new set of rules, and they do not bind the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) nor the national courts. However, they are composed on the basis of case law from the CJEU and therefore they can be of great importance when interpreting the 261-regulation.

A main issue which is dealt with in the new guideline is:

Who is targeted by Regulation 261/2004?

As some of you might already have guessed, the keyword here is operating carrier. Many of the cases we see at IUNO arise from the situation where a passenger buys a ticket from one airline for a flight carried out by another airline. In this situation the passenger often chooses to raise a claim or lawsuit against the airline which actively sold the ticket - and not the airline that actually carried out/operated the flight. These disputes often arise in cases where several airlines form part of a codeshare agreement. Thus, it is quite the hot topic: Who is obligated under the 261-regulation?

Article 3(5) of Regulation 261 refers to any “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

The common misunderstanding here relates to the fact that both the ticket-selling airline and the actual operating airline falls under the definition “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

It is mentioned in the preamble of Regulation 261 that the obligations set forth by the regulation “should rest with the operating carrier”. This has now finally been specified in the recent guidelines. The guidelines clarify that the air carrier responsible for the obligations pursuant to Regulation 261 is always the operating air carrier, thus the air carrier who actually requests the airport for the airplane’s take-off and not the carrier who may have sold the ticket.

Wet leased planes

The question could be more complicated if the airplane used for the flight was wet leased. It could then be argued that the leasing bureau, which actually owned the plane and which had employed the crew, indeed was the operating carrier. However, Regulation 261 states that this is not the case. The obligations under the regulation rest on the operating carrier whether the flight is performed with its own aircraft, under wet or dry leasing or on any other basis.

What does it all mean?

The guidelines are in line with Danish case law; airlines which only sell the tickets have no obligations under Regulation 261 and can thereby reject any claim due to delays, cancellations or denied boarding raised by passengers in this regard.

[Official Journal of the European Union, C 214, 15 June 2016, page 5] 


---o0o---

Stay tuned

In the next period of time, we will take a closer look on some of the most highlighted issues in the guidelines which the airlines face.

On 26 August 2016, IUNO invites airlines and other companies within the aviation business to a seminar focusing on the new guidelines for interpretation of Regulation 261/2004. During the seminar, we will go over the guidelines and also touch upon some of the topics we face in current cases.

The seminar takes place on 26 August 2016 from 9:00 am to 11:00 am.
Tea, coffee, and a light breakfast will be served from 8:30 am.

The address is
IUNO
Njalsgade 19C, 3.
2300 Copenhagen S

The seminar is free of charge and will be held in Danish.

Background

In 2004, the European Parliament and the Council established common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The purpose of this regulation was to ensure the same high level of protection for passengers throughout the European Union. However, due to grey zones and gaps in the current text of the regulation the provisions included in the 261-regulation have been interpreted and enforced differently in each member state. Therefore - in order to set the record somewhat straight - the Commission has recently issued a Commission Notice containing guidelines for interpretation of the regulation.

The Interpretative guidelines cannot be viewed as a new set of rules, and they do not bind the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) nor the national courts. However, they are composed on the basis of case law from the CJEU and therefore they can be of great importance when interpreting the 261-regulation.

A main issue which is dealt with in the new guideline is:

Who is targeted by Regulation 261/2004?

As some of you might already have guessed, the keyword here is operating carrier. Many of the cases we see at IUNO arise from the situation where a passenger buys a ticket from one airline for a flight carried out by another airline. In this situation the passenger often chooses to raise a claim or lawsuit against the airline which actively sold the ticket - and not the airline that actually carried out/operated the flight. These disputes often arise in cases where several airlines form part of a codeshare agreement. Thus, it is quite the hot topic: Who is obligated under the 261-regulation?

Article 3(5) of Regulation 261 refers to any “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

The common misunderstanding here relates to the fact that both the ticket-selling airline and the actual operating airline falls under the definition “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

It is mentioned in the preamble of Regulation 261 that the obligations set forth by the regulation “should rest with the operating carrier”. This has now finally been specified in the recent guidelines. The guidelines clarify that the air carrier responsible for the obligations pursuant to Regulation 261 is always the operating air carrier, thus the air carrier who actually requests the airport for the airplane’s take-off and not the carrier who may have sold the ticket.

Wet leased planes

The question could be more complicated if the airplane used for the flight was wet leased. It could then be argued that the leasing bureau, which actually owned the plane and which had employed the crew, indeed was the operating carrier. However, Regulation 261 states that this is not the case. The obligations under the regulation rest on the operating carrier whether the flight is performed with its own aircraft, under wet or dry leasing or on any other basis.

What does it all mean?

The guidelines are in line with Danish case law; airlines which only sell the tickets have no obligations under Regulation 261 and can thereby reject any claim due to delays, cancellations or denied boarding raised by passengers in this regard.

[Official Journal of the European Union, C 214, 15 June 2016, page 5] 


---o0o---

Stay tuned

In the next period of time, we will take a closer look on some of the most highlighted issues in the guidelines which the airlines face.

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Presentation

For IUNO+ members only.

Similar

icon-chat
Seminar Aviation
28 January 2020

icon-livestream
Aviation Online event
28 January 2020

How to win Court Cases concerning regulation 261/2004 without an oral hearing

icon-documents
Document Aviation
28 January 2020

How to win Court Cases concerning regulation 261/2004 without an oral hearing

E-learning Aviation
28 January 2020

How to win Court Cases concerning regulation 261/2004 without an oral hearing

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Legal assistant

Amalie

Sofie Sveen Kvam

Legal assistant

Amanda

Jepsen Bregnhardt

Junior legal assistant

Andrea

Brix Danielsen

Legal assistant

Anna

Bonander

Legal assistant

Anna

Kreutzmann

Legal assistant

Anne

Poulsen

Senior legal advisor

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Legal assistant

Anton

Winther Hansen

Legal assistant

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Carl-Emil

Schumann Dinesen

Senior legal advisor

Caroline

Skarsø Erwolter

Legal assistant

Cecilie

Padbjerg Kjelstrup

Legal assistant

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Legal assistant

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Legal advisor

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Legal assistant

Emma

Engvang Hansen

Legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal manager

Fransine

Andersson

Senior legal assistant

Frederik

Dybro Mikkelsen

Junior legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Senior legal assistant

Gabrielle

Marie Rokkjær

Legal assistant

Gustav

Vestergaard

Legal assistant

Hila

Noori Hashimi

Legal assistant

Ida

Ralfkiær Rask

Legal assistant

Ingrid

Lützner Buch

Legal assistant

Isabella

Graae Norsker

Legal assistant

Isabella

Rocio Nielsen

Legal assistant

Ittqa

Hussain

Legal assistant

Izabell

Celina Bastrup Lüthje

Legal assistant

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Legal assistant

Josephine

Thenning Kannegaard

Junior legal assistant

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Junior legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Legal assistant

Kathrine

Arntzen Lauvstad

Junior legal assistant

Laura

Jørgensen

Legal assistant

Lise

Jørgen Carlsen Gjerde

Associate

Liva

Tværmose Høegh

Legal assistant

Magnus

Henckel Holtse

Legal assistant

Marie

Langermann-Nielsen

Legal assistant

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Legal manager

Nikoline

Lanzky Otto

Legal assistant

Peter

Basbøll

Legal assistant

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Legal assistant

Selma

Agopian

Senior EU associate

Sille

Lyng Mejding

Legal assistant

Simone

Bjergskov Nielsen

Legal assistant

Sofie

Storli

Legal assistant

Sofija

Cabrilo

Legal assistant

Sophia

Maria Dahl-Jensen

Senior legal advisor

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Legal assistant