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
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