The holiday airline Condor failed in the district court of Frankfurt am Main with the claim for damages brought against the Polish state holding PGL. A counterclaim was also dismissed.

After the collapse of the Thomas Cook group, Condor took refuge in a so-called protective shield procedure. LOT owner PGL was later introduced as a buyer. The deal fell through shortly after the start of the corona pandemic. As a result, the German carrier was once again granted state aid.

Due to the fact that the PGL Holding has withdrawn from the purchase contract, Condor brought a claim for damages. This was negotiated before the district court in Frankfurt. Polska Grupa Lotnicza responded with a so-called counterclaim, which was dismissed by judgment of May 27, 2022 under file number 3-02 O 1/21.

At the time PGL withdrew from the contract, the deal was not yet finally sealed. This was presented differently in public at the time. The Polish company resigned between signing and closing in April 2020. Condor takes the view that the Polish company was not entitled to do so and has sued for damages of 56 million euros.

The Frankfurt Regional Court did not agree with the view of the holiday airline and dismissed Condor's lawsuit. The chamber found that the German airline had not fulfilled its obligations under the purchase agreement. As a result, PGL would have been entitled to withdraw from the contract. Various points that could lead to the non-execution of the deal would have been recorded in the takeover agreement. From the point of view of the court, it should have been particularly relevant that the jointly agreed insolvency plan must become legally binding.

The LG Frankfurt found that Condor had made changes without the consent of PGL. The consequence of this is that the holiday airline did not properly fulfill the implementation provisions of the purchase contract and the LOT parent company was therefore entitled to withdraw. The Polska Grupa Lotnicza therefore wanted to claim damages in the amount of eight million as part of a counterclaim. However, the court found that PGL had also not behaved in accordance with the contract in some respects and also rejected this request.