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 favour 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 favour 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
Adam
Harding Ryyd Lange
Senior legal assistant
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Senior legal advisor
Andrea
Brix Danielsen
Legal advisor
Anna
Bonander
Legal advisor
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal manager
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Junior legal advisor
Anton
Winther Hansen
Senior legal advisor
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal advisor
Aurora
Maria Thunes Truyen
Associate
Benedicte
Rodian
Senior legal assistant
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor
Caroline
Sofie Urup Malmstrøm
Junior legal assistant
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal advisor
Cille
Fahnø
Junior legal advisor
Clara
Caballero Stephensen
Junior legal advisor
Daniel
Bornhøft Nielsen
Legal assistant
Ea
Tingkær Hesselfeldt
Legal assistant
Ellen
Priess-Hansen
Senior legal assistant
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Senior legal advisor
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Legal advisor
Emilia
Naledi Madonsela Mikkelsen
Legal assistant
Emma
Engvang Hansen
Senior legal assistant
Feline
Honoré Jepsen
Legal assistant
Fransine
Andersson
Senior legal advisor
Frederikke
Kirkegaard Thalund
Senior legal assistant
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Junior legal advisor
Frida
Aas Ahlquist
Senior legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Associate
Gustav
Vestergaard
Senior legal assistant
Holger
Koch-Klarskov
Junior legal advisor
Ian
Englev Jensen
Legal assistant
Ida
Marie Skovgaard Rubæk
Legal assistant
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Senior legal assistant
Jacqueline
Lucia Chrillesen
Legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Senior legal assistant
Julia
Wolfe
Legal advisor
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Legal advisor
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Senior legal manager
Kateryna
Buriak
Legal advisor
Laura
Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Luna
Bennesen
Legal assistant
Marie
Møller Christensen
Legal assistant
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Junior legal advisor
Nanna
Damkjær
Junior legal advsior
Nikita
Brinck Søberg
Legal assistant
Nourchaine
Sellami
Legal advisor
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal advisor
Selma
Agopian
Senior Associate, EU-advokat
Selma
Klinker Brodersen
Junior legal advisor
Silja
Brünnich Fogh von Deden
Legal assistant
Silje
Moen Knutsen
Legal advisor
Stine
Bank Olstrøm
Senior legal assistant
Ulrikke
Sejersbøl Christiansen
Legal assistant