EN
Aviation

Seminar on the New Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation 261/2004

calendar 26 August 2016
watch 9:00-11:00

Save the date! On 26 August 2016, IUNO hosts a seminar in Danish on the European Commission's new guidelines for the interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 regarding common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights. Even though it is only a set of guidelines it can still be of great significance when interpreting the 261-regulation. As a Danish law professor once said: “It won’t be binding, but it might be persuasive”.

On 26 August 2016, IUNO invites airlines and other companies within the aviation business to a seminar focusing on the new guidelines for interpretation of Regulation 261/2004. During the seminar, we will go over the guidelines and also touch upon some of the topics we face in current cases.

The seminar takes place on 26 August 2016 from 9:00 am to 11:00 am.
Tea, coffee, and a light breakfast will be served from 8:30 am.

The address is
IUNO
Njalsgade 19C, 3.
2300 Copenhagen S

The seminar is free of charge and will be held in Danish.

Background

In 2004, the European Parliament and the Council established common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The purpose of this regulation was to ensure the same high level of protection for passengers throughout the European Union. However, due to grey zones and gaps in the current text of the regulation the provisions included in the 261-regulation have been interpreted and enforced differently in each member state. Therefore - in order to set the record somewhat straight - the Commission has recently issued a Commission Notice containing guidelines for interpretation of the regulation.

The Interpretative guidelines cannot be viewed as a new set of rules, and they do not bind the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) nor the national courts. However, they are composed on the basis of case law from the CJEU and therefore they can be of great importance when interpreting the 261-regulation.

A main issue which is dealt with in the new guideline is:

Who is targeted by Regulation 261/2004?

As some of you might already have guessed, the keyword here is operating carrier. Many of the cases we see at IUNO arise from the situation where a passenger buys a ticket from one airline for a flight carried out by another airline. In this situation the passenger often chooses to raise a claim or lawsuit against the airline which actively sold the ticket - and not the airline that actually carried out/operated the flight. These disputes often arise in cases where several airlines form part of a codeshare agreement. Thus, it is quite the hot topic: Who is obligated under the 261-regulation?

Article 3(5) of Regulation 261 refers to any “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

The common misunderstanding here relates to the fact that both the ticket-selling airline and the actual operating airline falls under the definition “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

It is mentioned in the preamble of Regulation 261 that the obligations set forth by the regulation “should rest with the operating carrier”. This has now finally been specified in the recent guidelines. The guidelines clarify that the air carrier responsible for the obligations pursuant to Regulation 261 is always the operating air carrier, thus the air carrier who actually requests the airport for the airplane’s take-off and not the carrier who may have sold the ticket.

Wet leased planes

The question could be more complicated if the airplane used for the flight was wet leased. It could then be argued that the leasing bureau, which actually owned the plane and which had employed the crew, indeed was the operating carrier. However, Regulation 261 states that this is not the case. The obligations under the regulation rest on the operating carrier whether the flight is performed with its own aircraft, under wet or dry leasing or on any other basis.

What does it all mean?

The guidelines are in line with Danish case law; airlines which only sell the tickets have no obligations under Regulation 261 and can thereby reject any claim due to delays, cancellations or denied boarding raised by passengers in this regard.

[Official Journal of the European Union, C 214, 15 June 2016, page 5] 


---o0o---

Stay tuned

In the next period of time, we will take a closer look on some of the most highlighted issues in the guidelines which the airlines face.

On 26 August 2016, IUNO invites airlines and other companies within the aviation business to a seminar focusing on the new guidelines for interpretation of Regulation 261/2004. During the seminar, we will go over the guidelines and also touch upon some of the topics we face in current cases.

The seminar takes place on 26 August 2016 from 9:00 am to 11:00 am.
Tea, coffee, and a light breakfast will be served from 8:30 am.

The address is
IUNO
Njalsgade 19C, 3.
2300 Copenhagen S

The seminar is free of charge and will be held in Danish.

Background

In 2004, the European Parliament and the Council established common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights – Regulation (EC) No 261/2004. The purpose of this regulation was to ensure the same high level of protection for passengers throughout the European Union. However, due to grey zones and gaps in the current text of the regulation the provisions included in the 261-regulation have been interpreted and enforced differently in each member state. Therefore - in order to set the record somewhat straight - the Commission has recently issued a Commission Notice containing guidelines for interpretation of the regulation.

The Interpretative guidelines cannot be viewed as a new set of rules, and they do not bind the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) nor the national courts. However, they are composed on the basis of case law from the CJEU and therefore they can be of great importance when interpreting the 261-regulation.

A main issue which is dealt with in the new guideline is:

Who is targeted by Regulation 261/2004?

As some of you might already have guessed, the keyword here is operating carrier. Many of the cases we see at IUNO arise from the situation where a passenger buys a ticket from one airline for a flight carried out by another airline. In this situation the passenger often chooses to raise a claim or lawsuit against the airline which actively sold the ticket - and not the airline that actually carried out/operated the flight. These disputes often arise in cases where several airlines form part of a codeshare agreement. Thus, it is quite the hot topic: Who is obligated under the 261-regulation?

Article 3(5) of Regulation 261 refers to any “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

The common misunderstanding here relates to the fact that both the ticket-selling airline and the actual operating airline falls under the definition “operating carrier providing transport to passengers”.

It is mentioned in the preamble of Regulation 261 that the obligations set forth by the regulation “should rest with the operating carrier”. This has now finally been specified in the recent guidelines. The guidelines clarify that the air carrier responsible for the obligations pursuant to Regulation 261 is always the operating air carrier, thus the air carrier who actually requests the airport for the airplane’s take-off and not the carrier who may have sold the ticket.

Wet leased planes

The question could be more complicated if the airplane used for the flight was wet leased. It could then be argued that the leasing bureau, which actually owned the plane and which had employed the crew, indeed was the operating carrier. However, Regulation 261 states that this is not the case. The obligations under the regulation rest on the operating carrier whether the flight is performed with its own aircraft, under wet or dry leasing or on any other basis.

What does it all mean?

The guidelines are in line with Danish case law; airlines which only sell the tickets have no obligations under Regulation 261 and can thereby reject any claim due to delays, cancellations or denied boarding raised by passengers in this regard.

[Official Journal of the European Union, C 214, 15 June 2016, page 5] 


---o0o---

Stay tuned

In the next period of time, we will take a closer look on some of the most highlighted issues in the guidelines which the airlines face.

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Presentation

For IUNO+ members only.

Similar

icon-chat
Seminar Aviation
28 January 2020

icon-livestream
Aviation Online event
28 January 2020

How to win Court Cases concerning regulation 261/2004 without an oral hearing

icon-documents
Document Aviation
28 January 2020

How to win Court Cases concerning regulation 261/2004 without an oral hearing

E-learning Aviation
28 January 2020

How to win Court Cases concerning regulation 261/2004 without an oral hearing

The team

Aage

Krogh

Partner

Adam

Harding Ryyd Lange

Legal assistant

Amalie

Bjerre Hilmand

Legal advisor

Amalie

Sofie Sveen Kvam

Legal assistant

Amanda

Jepsen Bregnhardt

Senior legal assistant

Andrea

Brix Danielsen

Legal advisor

Anna

Bonander

Legal advisor

Anna

Kreutzmann

Senior legal assistant

Anne

Voigt Kjær

Junior legal advisor

Anton

Winther Hansen

Legal advisor

Ashley

Kristine Morton

Legal advisor

Aurora

Maria Thunes Truyen

Junior associate

Benedicte

Rodian

Senior legal assistant

Bror

Johan Kristensen

Senior legal advisor

Chanel

Adzioski

Junior legal assistant

Chris

Anders Nielsen

Senior legal advisor

Cille

Fahnø

Junior legal advisor

Clara

Caballero Stephensen

Junior legal advisor

Daniel

Bornhøft Nielsen

Junior legal assistant

Ellen

Priess-Hansen

Senior legal assistant

Elvira

Feline Basse Schougaard

Senior legal advisor

Ema

Besic-Ahmetagic

Legal advisor

Emilia

Naledi Madonsela Mikkelsen

Junior legal assistant

Emma

Engvang Hansen

Senior legal assistant

Emma

Frøslev Larsen

Legal manager

Fransine

Andersson

Legal advisor

Frederikke

Kirkegaard Thalund

Legal assistant

Frederikke

Østerlund Haarder

Junior legal advisor

Frida

Aas Ahlquist

Legal assistant

Frida

Assarson

Senior legal advisor

Holger

Koch-Klarskov

Junior legal assistant

Ian

Englev Jensen

Junior legal assistant

Izabell

Celina Bastrup Lüthje

Senior legal assistant

Jacqueline

Lucia Chrillesen

Junior legal assistant

Johanne

Berner Nielsen

Senior legal assistant

Josefine

Sørensen

Junior legal assistant

Julia

Wolfe

Legal advisor

Kaisa

Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard

Legal advisor

Karl Emil

Tang Nielsen

Legal assistant

Karoline

Halfdan Petersen

Legal manager

Karoline

Nordved

Legal assistant

Kateryna

Buriak

Legal advisor

Laura

Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mathias

Bech Linaa

Junior legal advisor

Maya

Cecillia Jørgensen

Senior legal advisor

Mie

Lundberg Larsen

Junior legal advisor

Nanna

Damkjær

Junior legal assistant

Nourchaine

Sellami

Legal advisor

Rosa

Gilliam-Vigh

Legal advisor

Selma

Agopian

Senior EU associate

Selma

Klinker Brodersen

Junior legal advisor

Silja

Brünnich Fogh von Deden

Junior legal assistant

Silje

Moen Knutsen

Legal advisor

Stine

Bank Olstrøm

Senior legal assistant

Ulrikke

Sejersbøl Christiansen

Legal assistant

Victoria

Mai Gregaard Handberg

Junior legal assistant