EN
Aviation

Codeshare agreements – Claims for 261-compensation must be raised against the operating carrier

logo
Legal news
calendar 29 June 2015
globus Denmark

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

Partner

Similar

logo
Aviation

4 May 2022

Despite several days' notice, a strike counted as an extraordinary circumstance

logo
Aviation

25 April 2022

Air Carrier not liable: No requirement to rebook to an earlier flight

logo
Aviation

25 August 2021

logo
Aviation

15 April 2021

logo
Aviation

5 April 2021

logo
Aviation

15 March 2021

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

Xenia

Marie Andersen

Junior legal assistant