Automatic rebooking system recognised as a reasonable precaution
A group of passengers refused to accept the automatic rebooking by the air carrier’s automated computer system. The Danish Eastern High Court found that the search system had concluded that there were no other and better rebooking options. The air carrier had taken the reasonable precautions required by Regulation 261/2004 through its rebooking system.
Effective rebooking of passengers
The passengers were supposed to fly from Bucharest via Amsterdam to Copenhagen. The flight from Bucharest was delayed, and the passengers missed their connecting flight to Copenhagen. The passengers were rebooked and arrived in Copenhagen with a total delay of over three hours. As a starting point, they were entitled to compensation under Regulation 261/2004.
The air carrier’s automatic rebooking system did the rebooking. The system was designed to find the rebooking that would create the least possible delay for each passenger under the given circumstances. The search system considered, among other things, which flights were available to the specific destination on the same day, whether there were open seats, the possibility of rebooking to surrounding airports, and the customer's preferences. The system took the air carrier’s flights into account, as well as flights with other air carriers.
The Danish Eastern High Court disagreed with the City Court of Copenhagen
The case was initially brought before the City Court of Copenhagen, which did not find that it would have been unreasonably burdensome for the air carrier to take further precautions beyond those actually taken. It was not enough that the air carrier used an automatic system to find the fastest possible rebooking for the passenger in question.
However, the case was appealed to the Eastern High Court. The tone had changed significantly here, as this court found that the air carrier had taken reasonable precautions through its automatic search system.
IUNO's opinion
The decision confirms that air carriers can advantageously use automatic rebooking systems in connection with rebooking. The courts recognise that this type of system can be considered in assessing whether an air carrier has taken the reasonable precautions required by Regulation 261/2004. The judgment aligns with the widespread use of artificial intelligence in the business world.
IUNO recommends that air carriers consider the use of rebooking systems in connection with compensation claims under Regulation 261/2004. Provided that the rebooking system works as intended, its use may be sufficient for the air carrier to meet its burden of proof for having taken reasonable precautions.
[Eastern High Court judgment of 21 November 2023 in case BS-6150/2023-OLR]
Effective rebooking of passengers
The passengers were supposed to fly from Bucharest via Amsterdam to Copenhagen. The flight from Bucharest was delayed, and the passengers missed their connecting flight to Copenhagen. The passengers were rebooked and arrived in Copenhagen with a total delay of over three hours. As a starting point, they were entitled to compensation under Regulation 261/2004.
The air carrier’s automatic rebooking system did the rebooking. The system was designed to find the rebooking that would create the least possible delay for each passenger under the given circumstances. The search system considered, among other things, which flights were available to the specific destination on the same day, whether there were open seats, the possibility of rebooking to surrounding airports, and the customer's preferences. The system took the air carrier’s flights into account, as well as flights with other air carriers.
The Danish Eastern High Court disagreed with the City Court of Copenhagen
The case was initially brought before the City Court of Copenhagen, which did not find that it would have been unreasonably burdensome for the air carrier to take further precautions beyond those actually taken. It was not enough that the air carrier used an automatic system to find the fastest possible rebooking for the passenger in question.
However, the case was appealed to the Eastern High Court. The tone had changed significantly here, as this court found that the air carrier had taken reasonable precautions through its automatic search system.
IUNO's opinion
The decision confirms that air carriers can advantageously use automatic rebooking systems in connection with rebooking. The courts recognise that this type of system can be considered in assessing whether an air carrier has taken the reasonable precautions required by Regulation 261/2004. The judgment aligns with the widespread use of artificial intelligence in the business world.
IUNO recommends that air carriers consider the use of rebooking systems in connection with compensation claims under Regulation 261/2004. Provided that the rebooking system works as intended, its use may be sufficient for the air carrier to meet its burden of proof for having taken reasonable precautions.
[Eastern High Court judgment of 21 November 2023 in case BS-6150/2023-OLR]
Similar
The team

Aage
Krogh
Partner
Adam
Harding Ryyd Lange
Senior legal assistant
Albert
Berg Giese
Junior legal assistant
Amalie
Bjerre Hilmand
Senior legal advisor (leave of absence)
Anna
Bonander
Legal advisor
Anna
Kreutzmann
Legal manager (leave of absence)
Anne
Voigt Kjær
Senior legal assistant
Anton
Winther Hansen
Senior legal advisor
Ashley
Kristine Morton
Legal advisor
Aurora
Maria Thunes Truyen
Associate
Bror
Johan Kristensen
Senior legal advisor
Caroline
Sofie Urup Malmstrøm
Junior legal assistant
Chris
Anders Nielsen
Senior legal advisor
Cille
Fahnø
Junior legal advisor
Clara
Caballero Stephensen
Junior legal advisor
Daniel
Bornhøft Nielsen
Legal assistant
Ea
Tingkær Hesselfeldt
Legal assistant
Ellen
Priess-Hansen
Senior legal assistant
Elvira
Feline Basse Schougaard
Senior legal advisor
Ema
Besic-Ahmetagic
Legal advisor
Feline
Honoré Jepsen
Legal assistant
Fiona
Wahl
Junior legal assistant
Fransine
Andersson
Senior legal advisor
Frederikke
Østerlund Haarder
Senior legal assistant
Frida
Assarson
Associate
Gustav
Vestergaard
Senior legal assistant
Holger
Koch-Klarskov
Legal advisor
Ian
Englev Jensen
Legal assistant
Ida
Marie Skovgaard Rubæk
Legal manager
Izabell
Celina Bastrup Lüthje
Senior legal assistant
Jacqueline
Lucia Chrillesen
Legal assistant
Johanne
Berner Nielsen
Senior legal assistant (leave of absence)
Julia
Wolfe
Legal advisor
Kaisa
Maria Falkenberg Lending
Junior legal assistant
Kaisa
Nova Ordell Guldbrand Thygaard
Legal advisor
Karl Emil
Tang Nielsen
Senior legal assistant
Karoline
Halfdan Petersen
Senior legal manager
Kateryna
Buriak
Legal advisor
Laura
Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Luna
Bennesen
Legal assistant
Marie
Møller Christensen
Junior legal advisor
Mathias
Bech Linaa
Legal advisor
Maya
Cecillia Jørgensen
Senior legal advisor
Mie
Lundberg Larsen
Junior legal advisor
Nikita
Brinck Søberg
Senior legal assistant
Nourchaine
Sellami
Legal advisor
Rosa
Gilliam-Vigh
Legal advisor
Selma
Agopian
Senior Associate, EU-advokat
Selma
Klinker Brodersen
Legal advisor
Silja
Brünnich Fogh von Deden
Legal assistant
Silje
Moen Knutsen
Legal advisor
Stine
Bank Olstrøm
Senior legal assistant
Ulrikke
Sejersbøl Christiansen
Junior legal advisor
Victoria
Mai Gregaard Handberg
Legal advisor (leave of absence)