EN
Aviation

New interpretative Guidelines on Regulation 261/2004

logo
Legal news
calendar 30 June 2016
globus Denmark

Wednesday 15 June 2016, The European Commission issued a Commission Notice containing guidelines for the interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 regarding common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights. Even though it is only a set of guidelines it can still be of great significance when interpreting the 261-regulation. As a Danish law professor once said: “It won’t be binding, but it might be persuasive”

In 2004, the European Parliament and the Council established common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The purpose of this regulation was to ensure the same high level of protection for passengers throughout the European Union. However, due to grey zones and gaps in the current text of the regulation the provisions included in the 261-regulation have been interpreted and enforced differently in each member state. Therefore - in order to set the record somewhat straight - the Commission has recently issued a Commission Notice containing guidelines for interpretation of the regulation.

The Interpretative guidelines cannot be viewed as a new set of rules, and they do not bind the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) nor the national courts. However, they are composed on the basis of case law from the CJEU and therefore they can be of great importance when interpreting the 261-regulation.

A main issue which is dealt with in the new guideline is:

Who is targeted by Regulation 261/2004?

As some of you might already have guessed, the keyword here is operating carrier. Many of the cases we see at IUNO arise from the situation where a passenger buys a ticket from one airline for a flight carried out by another airline. In this situation the passenger often chooses to raise a claim or lawsuit against the airline which actively sold the ticket - and not the airline that actually carried out/operated the flight. These disputes often arise in cases where several airlines form part of a codeshare agreement. Thus, it is quite the hot topic: Who is obligated under the 261-regulation?

Article 3(5) of Regulation 261 refers to any “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

The common misunderstanding here relates to the fact that both the ticket-selling airline and the actual operating airline falls under the definition “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

It is mentioned in the preamble of Regulation 261 that the obligations set forth by the regulation “should rest with the operating carrier”. This has now finally been specified in the recent guidelines. The guidelines clarify that the air carrier responsible for the obligations pursuant to Regulation 261 is always the operating air carrier, thus the air carrier who actually requests the airport for the airplane’s take-off and not the carrier who may have sold the ticket.

Wet leased planes

The question could be made more complicated if the airplane used for the flight was wet leased. It could then be argued that the leasing bureau which actually owned the plane and which had employed the crew indeed was the operating carrier. However, Regulation 261 states that this is not the case. The obligations under the regulation rest on the operating carrier whether the flight is performed with its own aircraft, under wet or dry leasing or on any other basis.

What does it all mean?

The guidelines are in line with Danish case law; airlines which only sell the tickets have no obligations under Regulation 261 and can thereby reject any claim due to delays, cancellations or denied boarding raised by passengers in this regard.

[Official Journal of the European Union, C 214, 15 June 2016, page 5]

---o0o---

Stay tuned

In the next period of time, we will take a closer look on some of the most highlighted issues in the guidelines which the airlines face very often.

In 2004, the European Parliament and the Council established common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The purpose of this regulation was to ensure the same high level of protection for passengers throughout the European Union. However, due to grey zones and gaps in the current text of the regulation the provisions included in the 261-regulation have been interpreted and enforced differently in each member state. Therefore - in order to set the record somewhat straight - the Commission has recently issued a Commission Notice containing guidelines for interpretation of the regulation.

The Interpretative guidelines cannot be viewed as a new set of rules, and they do not bind the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) nor the national courts. However, they are composed on the basis of case law from the CJEU and therefore they can be of great importance when interpreting the 261-regulation.

A main issue which is dealt with in the new guideline is:

Who is targeted by Regulation 261/2004?

As some of you might already have guessed, the keyword here is operating carrier. Many of the cases we see at IUNO arise from the situation where a passenger buys a ticket from one airline for a flight carried out by another airline. In this situation the passenger often chooses to raise a claim or lawsuit against the airline which actively sold the ticket - and not the airline that actually carried out/operated the flight. These disputes often arise in cases where several airlines form part of a codeshare agreement. Thus, it is quite the hot topic: Who is obligated under the 261-regulation?

Article 3(5) of Regulation 261 refers to any “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

The common misunderstanding here relates to the fact that both the ticket-selling airline and the actual operating airline falls under the definition “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

It is mentioned in the preamble of Regulation 261 that the obligations set forth by the regulation “should rest with the operating carrier”. This has now finally been specified in the recent guidelines. The guidelines clarify that the air carrier responsible for the obligations pursuant to Regulation 261 is always the operating air carrier, thus the air carrier who actually requests the airport for the airplane’s take-off and not the carrier who may have sold the ticket.

Wet leased planes

The question could be made more complicated if the airplane used for the flight was wet leased. It could then be argued that the leasing bureau which actually owned the plane and which had employed the crew indeed was the operating carrier. However, Regulation 261 states that this is not the case. The obligations under the regulation rest on the operating carrier whether the flight is performed with its own aircraft, under wet or dry leasing or on any other basis.

What does it all mean?

The guidelines are in line with Danish case law; airlines which only sell the tickets have no obligations under Regulation 261 and can thereby reject any claim due to delays, cancellations or denied boarding raised by passengers in this regard.

[Official Journal of the European Union, C 214, 15 June 2016, page 5]

---o0o---

Stay tuned

In the next period of time, we will take a closer look on some of the most highlighted issues in the guidelines which the airlines face very often.

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

26 February 2024

Cancelled tickets resulted in denied boarding

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Junior 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

Junior legal advisor

Anna

Kreutzmann

Senior legal assistant

Anne

Poulsen

Senior legal advisor

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Senior legal assistant

Anton

Winther Hansen

Legal advisor

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal advisor

Benedicte

Rodian

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

Frederik

Dybro Mikkelsen

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Kirkegaard Thalund

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Senior legal assistant

Frida

Aas Ahlquist

Legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Legal advisor

Gustav

Vestergaard

Legal assistant

Hanna

Honerød Augestad

Junior legal advisor

Ida

Ralfkiær Rask

Legal assistant

Isabella

Graae Norsker

Junior legal advisor

Isabella

Rocio Nielsen

Junior legal advisor

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Legal assistant

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Junior legal advisor

Karl Emil

Tang Nielsen

Legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Legal manager

Karoline

Nordved

Junior legal assistant

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mathias

Bech Linaa

Junior legal advisor

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Legal manager (on leave)

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

Legal assistant