New interpretative Guidelines on Regulation 261/2004
Wednesday 15 June 2016, The European Commission issued a Commission Notice containing guidelines for the interpretation of Regulation 261/2004 regarding common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of 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”
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 made 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 very often.
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 made 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 very often.
Receive our newsletter

Aage
Krogh
PartnerSimilar
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)