EN
Aviation

Technical errors: Claims should still be stayed

logo
Legal news
calendar 23 April 2015
globus Denmark

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

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