EN
Aviation

Welcome to our newsletter on European Aviation Law

logo
Legal news
calendar 4 March 2015
globus Denmark

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

Partner

Similar

logo
Aviation

25 May 2022

Air carriers are not obligated to refund fees charged by ticket providers

logo
Aviation

4 May 2022

Despite several days' notice, a strike counted as an extraordinary circumstance

logo
Aviation

25 April 2022

Air Carrier not liable: No requirement to rebook to an earlier flight

logo
Aviation

25 August 2021

logo
Aviation

15 April 2021

logo
Aviation

5 April 2021

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

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Legal assistant