The airline Austrian Airlines suffered a defeat in the Supreme Court with regard to its general conditions of carriage. The Chamber of Labor had sued against five clauses and was right before the Supreme Court.

Among other things, the OGH considered the carrier's practice of charging a hefty fee of 35 euros for the refund of taxes and fees to be illegal. The Chamber of Labor is now providing a sample letter with which those affected can claim back the money that was wrongly withheld.

According to the AK, the most important points of the OGH judgment for passengers:

Extra Handling Fee on a canceled flight – don't get it from consumers: If someone goes on a trip, then he can tell something - and sometimes even if he doesn't start the trip at all. Anyone who cancels their flight has the right to get the taxes and fees back. Austrian Airlines deducted a processing fee (“refund fee”) of EUR 35 per ticket from this amount. The airline referred to a clause that provides for a deduction of “applicable processing and cancellation fees” in the event of cancellation, but without naming the amount. The OGH found the clause to be unlawful because the consumers were not sufficiently informed about the amount. The clause itself does not provide any information about the amount, nor does it contain a reference to where one can obtain information about the amount. Consumers can use the AK sample letter to recover the unjustified processing fee: www.arbeiterkammer.at/aua-bearbeitungsgebuehrklausel.

Baggage flies “as far as possible”. – must not depend on the “mood” of the airline: The OGH judged a clause to be grossly disadvantageous and non-transparent, according to which the checked baggage item flies “as far as possible” on board the same machine as you do. Unless the company decides to cancel the carriage to be carried out on another flight for safety reasons. With the wording "as far as possible", the OGH interpreted the clause in such a way that the company can also decide for reasons other than security reasons that the piece of luggage will not be taken on a flight. According to the Supreme Court, the clause is unlawful: since no other reasons are mentioned in the clause, it is left to the arbitrariness of the company, in the most customer-hostile interpretation, in which cases it transports the luggage separately.

Code Share Partner Policy check yourself – does not apply to consumers: The AK objected to a clause according to which each code share partner (several airlines share the flight) has its own provisions that may deviate from the provisions of Austrian Airlines (e.g. what check-in time limits, baggage allowances/ assumptions concerned). Consumers should inform themselves by linking to the Code Share Partners' respective websites and check whether the different provisions are inconsistent in order to assess which terms and conditions prevail. The OGH found the clause to be unlawful: it contradicts the transparency requirement – ​​the wording in the terms and conditions must be transparent, as clear and understandable as possible.