Because of questionable clauses in the conditions of carriage, the Association for Consumer Information (VKI) took Lufthansa AG to the Supreme Court - and won a majority vote. The judgment is final.

One of the clauses objected to by the VKI stipulated an obligation to pay back if customers did not use their flights on all sections or in the order booked. Although this clause provided for exceptions to so-called “no-show fees”, these ultimately did not go far enough for the Supreme Court. 

The company did define exceptions (e.g. prevention due to force majeure, illness), combined with the requirement that the reasons for the prevention be communicated and proven immediately after becoming aware of this. But the exceptions mentioned are too narrow, according to the highest judges. In addition, the court disagreed with the rule that passengers must immediately report obstacles even in those situations in which it is not possible for them to make direct contact with the beeline. The Supreme Court therefore classified this clause as grossly disadvantageous.

"For the VKI, no-show fees are fundamentally incomprehensible," criticizes Beate Gelbmann, head of the complaints department at the VKI. “In the end, the airline's customers paid the agreed price for the entire flight. Why they then have to make additional payments if they do not use part of the agreed - and already paid - service or trip remains incomprehensible. "

Lufthansa refuses to carry you if your flight ticket is damaged

Another clause stipulated that, among other things, there was no entitlement to carriage if the ticket presented was seriously damaged. The Supreme Court also classified this regulation as unlawful. Because the clause was formulated too general and did not aim to ensure that the information relevant for the transport is no longer legible or contained. In addition, according to the court, this clause prevents customers from proving their entitlement to fly in another way - for example by presenting a confirmation from the travel agency issuing the ticket.

In total, the Supreme Court found 30 clauses of Lufthansa's conditions of carriage to be unlawful. On the other hand, the Supreme Court found those clauses that entitle the AUA parent to cancel a booking if passengers do not appear in time to board the aircraft or do not comply with the registration deadline at the airport.