Codeshare agreements – Claims for 261-compensation must be raised against the operating carrier
Copenhagen City Court has just passed a judgment of great importance to the question whether the contracting carrier and / or the operating carrier can be held responsible to pay compensation under Regulation 261/2004.
We are pleased to inform that Copenhagen City Court dismissed the claim against the contracting carrier, thereby aligning Danish Law with what applies in other European jurisdictions.
In this case, the passengers had booked a flight from Florence to Billund via Amsterdam. The first flight from Florence to Amsterdam was subject to a codeshare arrangement, and the operating carrier was not identical with the company from which the passengers had purchased their tickets.
Due to a delay which occurred on this first flight, the passengers filed a claim against the contracting carrier. The passengers argued that Regulation 261/04 provides the passengers with a choice between directing a claim for compensation against the contracting and the operating carrier as jointly liable parties.
However, the City Court did not agree. The court found in favor of the defending airline company and once and for all determined that a claim for compensation can only be raised against the operating carrier.
Wet lease vs. codeshare
During the main hearing, the passengers relied on a previous Danish judgment, which at first sight seemed to support that the claim for 261-compensation could correctly be raised against the contracting carrier.
However, on behalf of the defendant we argued that there were two main differences:
- The previous case did not concern a codeshare agreement but a wet lease agreement; and
- In the previous case the passengers had not been properly informed that the aircraft was operated by another airline company than the contracting carrier. In the current case, this was explicitly stated on the tickets.
Based on these two differences, the court agreed with the defending airline and dismissed the case.
Following these two judgments, it now seems clear that in cases concerning official codeshare agreements (as opposed to pure wet lease agreements) claims for 261-compensation can only be raised against the operating carrier.
IUNO's opinion
IUNO agrees with the recent court ruling. First of all, this is in our opinion the only correct way to interpret the wording of Regulation; especially in the light of the preparatory works.
Furthermore, the recent ruling is completely in line with case law from other EU jurisdictions. Even though Danish courts are not bound by case law from other EU-countries per se, they are obliged to take such decisions into account due to the EU principle of uniformity. In addition, it is important to maintain a high level of consistency in case law in the European countries in order to prevent inexpedient forum shopping.
IUNO has several more cases on this question coming up in the fall of 2015, which we hope will enlighten the currently unclear situation. And we will of course keep you posted.
Have a great summer.
We are pleased to inform that Copenhagen City Court dismissed the claim against the contracting carrier, thereby aligning Danish Law with what applies in other European jurisdictions.
In this case, the passengers had booked a flight from Florence to Billund via Amsterdam. The first flight from Florence to Amsterdam was subject to a codeshare arrangement, and the operating carrier was not identical with the company from which the passengers had purchased their tickets.
Due to a delay which occurred on this first flight, the passengers filed a claim against the contracting carrier. The passengers argued that Regulation 261/04 provides the passengers with a choice between directing a claim for compensation against the contracting and the operating carrier as jointly liable parties.
However, the City Court did not agree. The court found in favor of the defending airline company and once and for all determined that a claim for compensation can only be raised against the operating carrier.
Wet lease vs. codeshare
During the main hearing, the passengers relied on a previous Danish judgment, which at first sight seemed to support that the claim for 261-compensation could correctly be raised against the contracting carrier.
However, on behalf of the defendant we argued that there were two main differences:
- The previous case did not concern a codeshare agreement but a wet lease agreement; and
- In the previous case the passengers had not been properly informed that the aircraft was operated by another airline company than the contracting carrier. In the current case, this was explicitly stated on the tickets.
Based on these two differences, the court agreed with the defending airline and dismissed the case.
Following these two judgments, it now seems clear that in cases concerning official codeshare agreements (as opposed to pure wet lease agreements) claims for 261-compensation can only be raised against the operating carrier.
IUNO's opinion
IUNO agrees with the recent court ruling. First of all, this is in our opinion the only correct way to interpret the wording of Regulation; especially in the light of the preparatory works.
Furthermore, the recent ruling is completely in line with case law from other EU jurisdictions. Even though Danish courts are not bound by case law from other EU-countries per se, they are obliged to take such decisions into account due to the EU principle of uniformity. In addition, it is important to maintain a high level of consistency in case law in the European countries in order to prevent inexpedient forum shopping.
IUNO has several more cases on this question coming up in the fall of 2015, which we hope will enlighten the currently unclear situation. And we will of course keep you posted.
Have a great summer.
Receive our newsletter

Aage
Krogh
PartnerSimilar
The team

Aage
Krogh
Partner
Anne
Poulsen
Senior legal assistant
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Legal assistant
Carl-Emil
Schumann Dinesen
Legal assistant
Caroline
Bruun Ibsen
Senior legal assistant
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal assistant
Clara
Andersen Øfeldt
(Leave of absence)
Clara
Löfgren
Legal assistant
Ellen
Thorn Ekstrøm
Senior legal assistant
Emma
Frøslev Larsen
Legal Manager
Fanny
Hansson
Legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Legal assistant
Hila
Noori Hashimi
Legal assistant
Ingrid
Nordgård Kvaal
Senior legal assistant
Julie
Aagaard Thomsen
Senior legal assistant
Kathinka
Buchter
Legal Advisor
Kathrine
Münter
Senior legal assistant
Kathrine
Wohlers Sørensen
(Leave of absence)
Kirstine
Damkjær Nielsen
Legal Advisor
Laura
Jørgensen
Senior legal assistant
Line
Ponton Nemeth
Legal assistant
Luna
Hjelmen Dannemann Lundgren
Junior legal assistant
Malene
Ougaard Sørensen
Legal Advisor
Mathias
Jul Soursou
Junior legal assistant
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal assistant
Mikkel
Løve Ekstrand
Legal assistant
Rasmine
Laguna Kristensen
Legal Advisor
Sara
Helenius
Senior legal assistant
Selma
Agopian
EU Lawyer
Siri
Agnete Bennekou
Legal assistant
Sol
Marie Ronæs
Legal assistant
Sophia
Maria Dahl-Jensen
Legal Advisor
Sophie
Toftegaard
Legal Manager