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

25 August 2021

logo
Aviation

15 April 2021

logo
Aviation

5 April 2021

logo
Aviation

15 March 2021

logo
Aviation

5 March 2021

logo
Aviation

23 February 2021

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Anne

Poulsen

Senior legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Junior legal assistant

Carl-Emil

Schumann Dinesen

Junior legal assistant

Caroline

Bruun Ibsen

Senior legal assistant

Cecilie

Marie Hoff Schmidt

Senior legal assistant

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Christian

Hulegaard Kjær Sørensen

Senior legal assistant

Clara

Andersen Øfeldt

Senior legal assistant

Ellen

Thorn Ekstrøm

Senior legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal assistant

Emma

Zisko Norman Svendsen

Senior legal assistant

Fanny

Hansson

Junior legal assistant

Ingrid

Nordgård Kvaal

Legal assistant

Julie

Aagaard Thomsen

Senior legal assistant

Joachim

Sieverts Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Kathinka

Buchter

Senior legal assistant

Kathrine

Münter

Senior legal assistant

Kathrine

Wohlers Sørensen

Junior legal assistant

Kirstine

Damkjær Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal assistant

Line

Ponton Nemeth

Junior legal assistant

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal assistant

Sara

Helenius

Senior legal assistant

Selma

Agopian

EU Lawyer

Siri

Agnete Bennekou

Junior legal assistant

Sophia

Maria Dahl-Jensen

Senior legal assistant

Sophie

Toftegaard

Senior legal assistant