Technical errors: Claims should still be stayed
IUNO have asked the District Court of Copenhagen to stay a great number of cases on delays and cancellations caused by technical errors. We are pleased to report, that the District Court has just decided to stay two of our pending cases on technical errors while waiting for the High Court. Thus, our recommendation remains that all cases on technical errors shall be petitioned to be stayed.
As we described in our newsletter of 4 March 2015, four Danish Eastern High Court cases (the so-called Primera cases) regarding compensation for delay have been appealed to the Danish Supreme Court. It is expected that these Supreme Court judgements will provide some guidance as to when a technical error under Danish law can be considered an extraordinary circumstance, exempting airlines from the obligation to pay compensation to delayed passengers.
Four cases have been stayed
As a consequence of this Supreme Court appeal, the District Court of Copenhagen gave an interlocutory order staying four cases until the Supreme Court has given their ruling. Thus, it seems that the District Court of Copenhagen is of the opinion that cases with at least some similarity to the Primera cases should await the Supreme Court in order to secure an equal of treatment. We agree.
The passengers' countermove has been to request for an appeal against this interlocutory order to stay the cases. We have just been informed that the request for an appeal has been approved, which means that the High Court shall decide on the question of whether cases regarding technical errors should be stayed while we wait for a judgement from the Supreme Court.
Our reaction
IUNO have asked the District Court of Copenhagen to stay a great number of our cases on delays and cancellations caused by technical errors – at least until the High Court has decided on the appeal case of the interlocutory order. Since it is expected that the Supreme Court ruling will provide an interpretation giving guidance on the categorization of technical errors as extraordinary circumstances, our opinion is that pending cases on technical errors should await this interpretation in order to secure equality before the law.
We have just seen the first two decisions from the District Court.
We are pleased to report that the District Court ruled in favour of the airline in both cases.
Thus, the District Court decided that both cases should be stayed; at least until the High Court has decided on the appeal case of the interlocutory order as mentioned above.
At this point, the legal area of passenger rights is to some extent in a standby position, as everyone holds their breath waiting for the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, we expect that this is just the calm before the storm.
Stay tuned.
As we described in our newsletter of 4 March 2015, four Danish Eastern High Court cases (the so-called Primera cases) regarding compensation for delay have been appealed to the Danish Supreme Court. It is expected that these Supreme Court judgements will provide some guidance as to when a technical error under Danish law can be considered an extraordinary circumstance, exempting airlines from the obligation to pay compensation to delayed passengers.
Four cases have been stayed
As a consequence of this Supreme Court appeal, the District Court of Copenhagen gave an interlocutory order staying four cases until the Supreme Court has given their ruling. Thus, it seems that the District Court of Copenhagen is of the opinion that cases with at least some similarity to the Primera cases should await the Supreme Court in order to secure an equal of treatment. We agree.
The passengers' countermove has been to request for an appeal against this interlocutory order to stay the cases. We have just been informed that the request for an appeal has been approved, which means that the High Court shall decide on the question of whether cases regarding technical errors should be stayed while we wait for a judgement from the Supreme Court.
Our reaction
IUNO have asked the District Court of Copenhagen to stay a great number of our cases on delays and cancellations caused by technical errors – at least until the High Court has decided on the appeal case of the interlocutory order. Since it is expected that the Supreme Court ruling will provide an interpretation giving guidance on the categorization of technical errors as extraordinary circumstances, our opinion is that pending cases on technical errors should await this interpretation in order to secure equality before the law.
We have just seen the first two decisions from the District Court.
We are pleased to report that the District Court ruled in favour of the airline in both cases.
Thus, the District Court decided that both cases should be stayed; at least until the High Court has decided on the appeal case of the interlocutory order as mentioned above.
At this point, the legal area of passenger rights is to some extent in a standby position, as everyone holds their breath waiting for the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, we expect that this is just the calm before the storm.
Stay tuned.
Receive our newsletter

Aage
Krogh
PartnerSimilar
The team

Aage
Krogh
Partner
Adam
Harding Ryyd Lange
Senior legal assistant
Albert
Berg Giese
Junior legal assistant
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Senior legal advisor
Anna
Bonander
Legal advisor
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal manager (leave of absence)
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Senior legal assistant
Anton
Winther Hansen
Senior legal advisor
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal advisor
Aurora
Maria Thunes Truyen
Associate
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor
Caroline
Sofie Urup Malmstrøm
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
Feline
Honoré Jepsen
Legal assistant
Fiona
Wahl
Junior legal assistant
Fransine
Andersson
Senior legal advisor
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Senior legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Associate
Gustav
Vestergaard
Senior legal assistant
Holger
Koch-Klarskov
Legal advisor
Ian
Englev Jensen
Legal assistant
Ida
Marie Skovgaard Rubæk
Senior legal manager
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Senior legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Senior legal assistant
Julia
Wolfe
Legal advisor
Kaisa
Maria Falkenberg Lending
Junior legal assistant
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Senior legal advisor
Karl Emil
Tang Nielsen
Senior legal assistant
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Senior legal manager (leave of absence)
Kateryna
Buriak
Legal advisor
Laura
Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Luna
Bennesen
Legal assistant
Marie
Møller Christensen
Junior legal advisor
Mathias
Bech Linaa
Senior legal advisor
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Junior legal advisor
Nikita
Brinck Søberg
Senior legal assistant
Nourchaine
Sellami
Legal advisor
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal advisor
Selma
Agopian
Senior Associate, EU-advokat
Selma
Klinker Brodersen
Legal advisor
Silja
Brünnich Fogh von Deden
Legal assistant
Silje
Moen Knutsen
Legal advisor
Stine
Bank Olstrøm
Senior legal assistant
Ulrikke
Sejersbøl Christiansen
Junior legal advisor
Victoria
Mai Gregaard Handberg
Legal advisor (leave of absence)