EN
Aviation

Cancelled tickets resulted in denied boarding

logo
Legal news
calendar 26 February 2024
globus Denmark

Usually, an air carrier has to pay compensation if they refuse to let passengers board a flight. However, in a recent case, the court ruled that three refused passengers were not entitled to compensation because their flight tickets had been cancelled. The court reached this conclusion despite it being unclear who had cancelled the tickets and how.

Three passengers were supposed to fly from Athens to Copenhagen. The air carrier refused to let them board because their tickets had been cancelled.

The passengers maintained that they had not cancelled their tickets. However, the air carrier's system showed that the passengers - or someone with access to their booking - had cancelled the tickets.

Mystery unsolved

The court decided that there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of a boarding refusal within the meaning of Regulation 261/2004. There was no proof that the air carrier was responsible for cancelling the flight tickets. The case never resulted in a clear explanation for who had carried out the cancellation and how.

IUNO's opinion

This case demonstrates that the regulation does not cover a boarding refusal if the passenger's booking has been cancelled. It also shows that the burden of proof of a valid ticket lies with the passenger. The responsibility will generally lie with the passenger if a ticket is cancelled.

IUNO recommends that air carriers ensure they have clear evidence of the passenger's cancellation, including precise logging of entries in the air carrier's systems. This will reduce the risk of unreasonable claims for compensation in cases where a passenger is denied boarding due to a cancelled flight ticket.

[The court of Frederiksberg's judgment of 20 December 2023 in case BS-31425/2022-FRB]

Three passengers were supposed to fly from Athens to Copenhagen. The air carrier refused to let them board because their tickets had been cancelled.

The passengers maintained that they had not cancelled their tickets. However, the air carrier's system showed that the passengers - or someone with access to their booking - had cancelled the tickets.

Mystery unsolved

The court decided that there was insufficient evidence to support the existence of a boarding refusal within the meaning of Regulation 261/2004. There was no proof that the air carrier was responsible for cancelling the flight tickets. The case never resulted in a clear explanation for who had carried out the cancellation and how.

IUNO's opinion

This case demonstrates that the regulation does not cover a boarding refusal if the passenger's booking has been cancelled. It also shows that the burden of proof of a valid ticket lies with the passenger. The responsibility will generally lie with the passenger if a ticket is cancelled.

IUNO recommends that air carriers ensure they have clear evidence of the passenger's cancellation, including precise logging of entries in the air carrier's systems. This will reduce the risk of unreasonable claims for compensation in cases where a passenger is denied boarding due to a cancelled flight ticket.

[The court of Frederiksberg's judgment of 20 December 2023 in case BS-31425/2022-FRB]

Receive our newsletter

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Similar

logo
Aviation

12 June 2024

Strike in the sister company

logo
Aviation

22 May 2024

Sudden illness was an unusual circumstance

logo
Aviation

3 May 2024

Proof of payment

logo
Aviation

10 April 2024

Refund through travel agency

logo
Aviation

20 March 2024

Six-hour delay in sight – no compensation

logo
Aviation

16 February 2024

Automatic rebooking system recognised as a reasonable precaution

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Legal assistant

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Legal advisor

Amalie

Sofie Sveen Kvam

Legal assistant

Amanda

Jepsen Bregnhardt

Legal assistant

Andrea

Brix Danielsen

Legal advisor

Anna

Bonander

Legal advisor

Anna

Kreutzmann

Senior legal assistant

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Senior legal assistant

Anton

Winther Hansen

Legal advisor

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal advisor

Benedicte

Rodian

Senior legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Senior legal assistant

Clara

Caballero Stephensen

Legal assistant

Ellen

Priess-Hansen

Legal assistant

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Senior legal advisor

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Junior legal advisor

Emma

Engvang Hansen

Legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal manager

Fransine

Andersson

Legal advisor

Frederikke

Kirkegaard Thalund

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Senior legal assistant

Frida

Aas Ahlquist

Legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Legal advisor

Gustav

Vestergaard

Senior legal assistant

Hanna

Honerød Augestad

Junior legal advisor

Isabella

Rocio Nielsen

Junior legal advisor

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Junior legal advisor

Karl Emil

Tang Nielsen

Legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Legal manager

Karoline

Nordved

Legal assistant

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mathias

Bech Linaa

Junior legal advisor

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Legal manager

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Legal advisor

Selma

Agopian

Senior EU associate

Selma

Klinker Brodersen

Junior legal advisor

Silje

Moen Knutsen

Junior legal advisor

Sille

Lyng Mejding

Legal advisor

Simone

Bjergskov Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Sofija

Cabrilo

Legal assistant

Sophia

Maria Dahl-Jensen

Senior legal advisor

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Senior legal assistant