Welcome to our newsletter on European Aviation Law
Hi, and welcome to the take-off of our newsletter on European aviation law. The newsletter is aimed at airlines and will update you on the latest legal development in Danish and European aviation law. IUNO has a legal team dedicated to this area and we are proud to say that we represent a number of the World's major airlines. We are "airside only" and do not represent airline passengers.
In this first newsletter, we will update you on the latest legal development in Denmark concerning compensation claims under EU Regulation 261 / 2004 and answer the question of what airlines should do while waiting for the Danish Supreme Court.
Delays due to technical defects – the short version
According to Regulation 261, airline passengers are entitled to compensation if an airplane is delayed for more than three hours, unless the delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances (EOC). Many airlines receive claims regarding delays caused by technical errors, but it is not always clear whether and to what extent technical errors can qualify as EOCs, and thereby relieve the airline from the obligation to pay compensation.
The so-called Wallentin-Hermann judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) indicates that if a technical error is within the control sphere of the airline, the airline will not be relieved. But in the same judgment, the CJEU recognizes that some technical defects may be characterized as an EOC. However, the judgment does not clearly specify which technical defects may qualify as EOCs, and neither are the boundaries of the control sphere of the airline determined. And to make matters worse, the decision is interpreted differently by courts and national public authorities in various EU member states. This also applies to Denmark, and the legal situation is currently under rapid development.
Denmark: Status regarding the four Primera Air-cases
Recently, the Danish Eastern High Court decided four cases regarding compensation for delay and found in the passengers’ favour in all four cases. The airline applied for permission to appeal the decisions to the Danish Supreme Court, and such permission was granted. Thus, the cases were officially appealed on 25 February 2015.
While we are waiting for the Supreme Court judges to dress up in their brightly coloured robes and hand down their judgment, one question remains unanswered: How should the airlines handle new and pending claims for compensation?
In short, the answer depends on the reason of the delay.
Should new claims cases be stayed?
The District Court of Copenhagen has given a court order stating that a number of pending court cases are to be stayed, until the Supreme Court has spoken. However, the District Court has also indicated that not all cases on Regulation 261-Compensation will be stayed.
In practice, this means that cases concerning problems with cabin pressure, the fuel system and the PSEU-system should be stayed. This probably also applies to cases concerning technical errors of a similar nature, and it might even apply to other kinds of technical errors. Cases concerning damages to a plane due to collision with vehicles or other objects in the airport should probably also be stayed.
However, the court order of the District Court to stay the cases has been appealed to the Eastern High Court, which may revert or confirm the order or even reject the appeal. We expect a decision within a few months.
For now, we suggest that airlines carefully consider whether to accept claims and to pay compensation to passengers who have been delayed due to technical errors or damage on airplane caused by a collision with vehicles or objects in the airport. When airlines are met with such claims the passengers should – in our view – be informed that the processing of the claim will be stayed while awaiting the decision and the inherent guidelines of the courts.
We will keep you posted of the further development.
In this first newsletter, we will update you on the latest legal development in Denmark concerning compensation claims under EU Regulation 261 / 2004 and answer the question of what airlines should do while waiting for the Danish Supreme Court.
Delays due to technical defects – the short version
According to Regulation 261, airline passengers are entitled to compensation if an airplane is delayed for more than three hours, unless the delay is caused by extraordinary circumstances (EOC). Many airlines receive claims regarding delays caused by technical errors, but it is not always clear whether and to what extent technical errors can qualify as EOCs, and thereby relieve the airline from the obligation to pay compensation.
The so-called Wallentin-Hermann judgment from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) indicates that if a technical error is within the control sphere of the airline, the airline will not be relieved. But in the same judgment, the CJEU recognizes that some technical defects may be characterized as an EOC. However, the judgment does not clearly specify which technical defects may qualify as EOCs, and neither are the boundaries of the control sphere of the airline determined. And to make matters worse, the decision is interpreted differently by courts and national public authorities in various EU member states. This also applies to Denmark, and the legal situation is currently under rapid development.
Denmark: Status regarding the four Primera Air-cases
Recently, the Danish Eastern High Court decided four cases regarding compensation for delay and found in the passengers’ favour in all four cases. The airline applied for permission to appeal the decisions to the Danish Supreme Court, and such permission was granted. Thus, the cases were officially appealed on 25 February 2015.
While we are waiting for the Supreme Court judges to dress up in their brightly coloured robes and hand down their judgment, one question remains unanswered: How should the airlines handle new and pending claims for compensation?
In short, the answer depends on the reason of the delay.
Should new claims cases be stayed?
The District Court of Copenhagen has given a court order stating that a number of pending court cases are to be stayed, until the Supreme Court has spoken. However, the District Court has also indicated that not all cases on Regulation 261-Compensation will be stayed.
In practice, this means that cases concerning problems with cabin pressure, the fuel system and the PSEU-system should be stayed. This probably also applies to cases concerning technical errors of a similar nature, and it might even apply to other kinds of technical errors. Cases concerning damages to a plane due to collision with vehicles or other objects in the airport should probably also be stayed.
However, the court order of the District Court to stay the cases has been appealed to the Eastern High Court, which may revert or confirm the order or even reject the appeal. We expect a decision within a few months.
For now, we suggest that airlines carefully consider whether to accept claims and to pay compensation to passengers who have been delayed due to technical errors or damage on airplane caused by a collision with vehicles or objects in the airport. When airlines are met with such claims the passengers should – in our view – be informed that the processing of the claim will be stayed while awaiting the decision and the inherent guidelines of the courts.
We will keep you posted of the further development.
Receive our newsletter

Aage
Krogh
PartnerSimilar
The team

Aage
Krogh
Partner
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Legal assistant
Amalie
Sofie Sveen Kvam
Legal assistant
Amanda
Jepsen Bregnhardt
Junior legal assistant
Andrea
Brix Danielsen
Legal assistant
Anna
Bonander
Legal assistant
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal assistant
Anne
Poulsen
Senior legal advisor
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Legal assistant
Anton
Winther Hansen
Legal assistant
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal assistant
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor
Carl-Emil
Schumann Dinesen
Senior legal advisor
Caroline
Skarsø Erwolter
Legal assistant
Cecilie
Padbjerg Kjelstrup
Legal assistant
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal advisor
Cille
Fahnø
Legal assistant
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Legal advisor
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Legal assistant
Emma
Engvang Hansen
Legal assistant
Emma
Frøslev Larsen
Legal manager
Fransine
Andersson
Senior legal assistant
Frederik
Dybro Mikkelsen
Junior legal assistant
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Senior legal assistant
Gabrielle
Marie Rokkjær
Legal assistant
Gustav
Vestergaard
Legal assistant
Hila
Noori Hashimi
Legal assistant
Ida
Ralfkiær Rask
Legal assistant
Ingrid
Lützner Buch
Legal assistant
Isabella
Graae Norsker
Legal assistant
Isabella
Rocio Nielsen
Legal assistant
Ittqa
Hussain
Legal assistant
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Legal assistant
Josephine
Thenning Kannegaard
Junior legal assistant
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Junior legal assistant
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Legal assistant
Kathrine
Arntzen Lauvstad
Junior legal assistant
Laura
Jørgensen
Legal assistant
Lise
Jørgen Carlsen Gjerde
Associate
Liva
Tværmose Høegh
Legal assistant
Magnus
Henckel Holtse
Legal assistant
Marie
Langermann-Nielsen
Legal assistant
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Legal manager
Nikoline
Lanzky Otto
Legal assistant
Peter
Basbøll
Legal assistant
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal assistant
Selma
Agopian
Senior EU associate
Sille
Lyng Mejding
Legal assistant
Simone
Bjergskov Nielsen
Legal assistant
Sofie
Storli
Legal assistant
Sofija
Cabrilo
Legal assistant
Sophia
Maria Dahl-Jensen
Senior legal advisor